Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court
Nos. SCWC-30444, SCWC-30568, and SCWC-10-0000166 Thursday, Sept. 18, 2014, 8:45 a.m.
(SCWC-30444) STATE OF HAWAI`I, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; et al., Respondents/Complainants-Appellees-Appellees, vs. DAYTON NAKANELUA, State Director, et al., Petitioners/Respondents-Appellants-Appellants and HAWAI`I LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; et al., Respondents/Agency-Appellees-Appellees.
(SCWC-30568) UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, et al., Petitioner/Union-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, vs. STATE OF HAWAI`I; THE JUDICIARY; et al., Respondents/Employers-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, and CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU (2009-044), Respondent/Employer-Appellee.
(SCWC-10-0000166) STATE OF HAWAI`I, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; et al., Respondents/Complainants-Appellees-Appellees, vs. DAYTON NAKANELUA, State Director, et al., Petitioners/Respondents-Appellants-Appellants, and HAWAI`I LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; et al., Respondents/Agency-Appellees-Appellees.
The above-captioned case was set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Herbert R. Takahashi, Rebecca L. Covert, and Davina W. Lam
Attorneys for Respondents State, the Judiciary and HHSC:
James E. Halvorson and Nelson Y. Nabeta, Deputy Attorneys General
Attorney for Respondents HLRB, Nicholson, etc.:
Valri Lei Kunimoto
NOTE: Certificate of recusal, by Associate Justice Sabrina S. McKenna, filed 06/20/14.
NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Rom A. Trader, in place of McKenna, J., recused, filed 06/26/14.
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 07/15/14.
COURT: MER, C.J., PAN, RWP, & MDW, JJ., and Circuit Court Judge Trader in place of McKenna, J., recused.
This is an appeal of three cases arising out of proceedings before the Hawai?i Labor Relations Board (HLRB) between several public employers and the United Public Workers (UPW) regarding the selection of a neutral arbitrator and allegations of prohibited practices.
UPW’s application raises the following four questions: (1) whether the ICA erred by misapplying the primary jurisdiction doctrine to conclude the HLRB had exclusive jurisdiction over the issues raised in this appeal; (2) whether the ICA erred by ignoring the clear legislative mandate in HRS § 658A-26, that the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction over the controversy and parties to enforce an agreement to arbitrate and to enter judgment on the award to enforce the judgment; (3) whether the ICA erred by ignoring the parties’ arbitration agreement that the parties select the neutral arbitrator, and instead affirmed the HLRB’s order that directed the American Arbitration Association to make the selection; and (4) whether the ICA erred in affirming the HLRB’s conclusion of willful conduct by UPW without evidence of any conscious, knowing, and deliberate intent to violate the provisions of HRS chapter 89 while avoiding review as moot.