§89-14 Prevention of prohibited practices. Any controversy concerning prohibited practices may be submitted to the board in the same manner and with the same effect as provided in section 377-9; provided that the board shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over such a controversy except that nothing herein shall preclude (1) the institution of appropriate proceedings in circuit court pursuant to section [89-12(c)] or (2) the judicial review of decisions or orders of the board in prohibited practice controversies in accordance with section 377-9 and chapter 91. All references in section 377-9 to "labor organization" shall include employee organization. [L 1970, c 171, pt of §2; am L 1982, c 27, §1; am L 1985, c 251, §6]
Case Notes
The Hawaii labor relations board (HLRB) had exclusive original jurisdiction over the statutory issues raised in public employees' union's complaint, and the circuit court erred in addressing the constitutional issues without first giving the HLRB the opportunity to address the issues arising under this chapter. 124 H. 197, 239 P.3d 1.
Circuit court erred by failing to allow the Hawaii labor relations board to decide the issues relating to chapter 89 before deciding the constitutional issues in the case where the plain language of this section supported the conclusion that the board had exclusive original jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and that the case was a "controversy concerning prohibited practices" that must first be submitted to the board. 126 H. 318, 271 P.3d 613.
An action concerning prohibited practices may be brought before the board or in a court of competent jurisdiction. 2 H. App. 50, 625 P.2d 1046.
Granting the labor relations board exclusive original jurisdiction over plaintiff's action under this section did not violate plaintiff's equal protection right; as plaintiff's fundamental right was not implicated, and plaintiff did not argue that public employees were a suspect class, the board's exclusive original jurisdiction over public sector prohibited practice controversies was rationally related to the public policy of chapter 89. 125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.
Granting the labor relations board exclusive original jurisdiction over plaintiff's action under this section did not violate plaintiff's substantive due process rights; as plaintiff's fundamental right was not implicated, granting the board exclusive original jurisdiction over public sector prohibited practice controversies was rationally related to the public policy of chapter 89 - that it would be more effective in promoting harmonious governmental employer-employee relations and assuring the effective operation of government for these controversies to be first decided by the board rather than the courts. 125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.
The labor relations board had exclusive original jurisdiction, pursuant to this section, over plaintiff's hybrid-action complaint involving prohibited practices where plaintiff's complaint alleged that the State had breached the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and that the United Public Workers, as plaintiff's exclusive representative under the CBA, had breached its duty of fair representation in violation of §89-8(a). 125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.
This section, by vesting the labor relations board with exclusive original jurisdiction over plaintiff's action, did not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as the administrative dispute resolution process set forth in chapter 89 did not preclude plaintiff from seeking redress from the courts; plaintiff could appeal an unfavorable decision issued by the board to the circuit court and was thus not deprived of reasonable access to the courts. 125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.
This section did not violate plaintiff's procedural due process rights where: (1) chapter 89 afforded plaintiff the opportunity to present plaintiff's action to the labor relations board in an administrative hearing; (2) the decision of the board required a majority vote of its three members, and one member each must be representative of management, labor, and the public; and (3) any person aggrieved by a decision of the board could appeal that decision to the circuit court. 125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.
The Hawaii labor relations board had jurisdiction to declare whether the factual circumstances presented to it in the union's amended petition would constitute a prohibited practice where the amended petition sought a declaratory ruling that the employers' service of subpoenas duces tecum interfered with, restrained, and otherwise violated the employees' rights under §89-3, and therefore constituted prohibited practices pursuant to §89-13(a)(1). 131 H. 142 (App.), 315 P.3d 768 (2013).
Section: Previous 89-10.5 89-10.6 89-10.8 89-10.55 89-11 89-12 89-13 89-14 89-15 89-16 89-16.5 89-16.6 89-17 89-18 89-19 NextLast modified: October 27, 2016