Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> HAWAN <br /> s ~ ~ <br /> <br /> w <br /> STATE OF HAWAII ORGANIZATION OF POLICE OFFICERS <br /> ~ Qy 1717 Hoe Street. Honolulu. Hawaii 96819-3125 <br /> o Telephone 1808) 84T4fi76. FAX (808) 8At-4818 <br /> ke <br /> ' RECEIVl~ ''M <br /> Hawaii County Council ltma___--__-~-~_r sy---- - <br /> Finance Committee ~0~-------=' <br /> County Council ~ F <br /> Aaron Chung, Chair <br /> Written Testimonvsn_favtr of Recnlutinn Nn 195-97 <br /> Chairman Chung and Councilmemhers: <br /> My name is Emory Springer. I am the Chairman of the Hawaii Chapter taf the State of Hawaii <br /> Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO). SHOPO supports the approval of cost items for BLT 1Z for the <br /> Contract Period July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1999, as decided by an arbitration panel. <br /> Under Hawaii's Collective Bargaining Law, Chapter 89, Hawaii Revised Statutes (H.R.S.), specifically, <br /> H.K.S. § 89-11(d), "(tJhe decision of the arbitration panel shall be final and binding upon the parties on all <br /> provisions submitted to the arbitration panel." This same section also provides, "[a]ll items requiring any <br /> moneys for implementation shall be subject to appropriations by the appropriate legislative bodies <br /> However, this language does not give legislative bodies the power to "accept or reject" cost items resulting from <br /> a final and binding arbitration. <br /> In an unpublished 1996 decision, then Circuit Judge Dan Heely, in his Decision and Order Granting <br /> Hawaii Fire Fighters Association, Local 1463's Motion [o Confirm Arbitration Award, concluded as a matter of <br /> law that under H.R.S. § 89-i l (d), "...cast items are made subject to the appropriations process, but no reference <br /> to the possibility of rejection exists. The lack of [such) comports with legislative intention to defer to the <br /> arbitration panel and achieve finality in an expeditious manner once negotiable issues proceed to dispute <br /> resolution, resulting in a final and binding arbitration decision and award, pursuant to the patties' mutually <br /> agreed upon arbitration procedures and H.R.S. § 89-11(d)." <br /> In his decision, Judge lieeley had considered H.R.S. § 89-10(b), which allows legislative bodies to <br /> accept or reject cost items neeotiated by the parties, with H.R.S. § 89-11(d). Judge Heeley stated, the words <br /> 'final and binding' should be given their plain and literal meaning. Any other construction leads to an absurd <br /> result." <br /> SHOPO is mindful of the Council's concern regarding Hawaii's economy being perceived as "flat" <br /> when compared to the mainland economy. However, SHOPO believes Hawaii County has nevertheless <br /> performed admirably. This may be due in part to the expanded runway at Kona, which has resulted in an <br /> increase in Japan Airline and United Airline flights directly to Kona, therefore providing a significant economic <br /> boost to the County. Furrhetmore, unfunded reserve balances are realized by the County every year. <br /> SHOPO believes that the wage increases resulting from the Arbitration decision are reasonable, and will <br /> not have a disastrous impact on the Employers' ability to provide essential services and functions tot a public. <br /> Comm Dla CJ 3. ,O ~ <br /> SHOPO urges the Council [o pass Resolution No. 195-97. frlia ?{o 5 <br /> i'; esentijd ~ ~ <br /> Hef. Tot , <br /> <br />