COM 0603.002 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~ ~ avaovitinin i Glrl ti ytl l/: Utli ./Cff3X ~{/bbiF'dg0 1r'1 ,y~ H1.wAn pq ~ . ~f N ,~a, G~ SHOPS y . STATE OF HAWAII pRGANIZATIpN OF POLICE OFFICERS i 1717 Hoa Slraat, Honolulu. Hawai-969193125 n ~,eQy Telephone (8381 847-4676, FAX'808j 941-4818 ICE O 4 Hawaii County Council ! RECEIVED ° James Y. Arakaki, Chair nom--- - By-.._.........._....., tL,eu ~a , , ---~...----r----°----- Written Testimnnv in fav+ r of 1 s tl +1'nn N 1 145-Qi ...,CO1Jnty Council Chairman Arakaki utd Councilmembers: The Stale of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) supports the approval of cost items for BU 1Z for the Contract Period July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1999, as decided by an arbitration panel. Under Hawaii's Collective Bargaining Law, Chapter 89, Hawaii Revised Statutes (H.R.S.), specifically, H.R.S. § 89-11(d), "[t]he decision of the arbitration panel shall be final and binding upon the parties on all provisions submitted to the arbitratinn panel." This same section also provides, "[aJll items requiring any moneys for implementation shall be subject to appropriations by the appropriate legislative bodies However, this language does not give legislative bodies the power to "accept or reject" cost items resulting from a final and binding arbitration. In an unpublished 1996 decision, [hen Circuit Judge Dan Heely, in his Decision and Order Granting 1-lawaii Fire Fighters Association, Local 1463's Moron to Confirm Arbitration Award, concluded as a matter of law that under 11.R.S. § 89-11(d), "...cost items are made subject to the appropriations process, but no reference to the possibility of rejection exists. The lack of (such] comports with legislative intention to defer to the arbitration panel and achieve finality in sn expeditious manner once negotiable issues proceed to dispute resolution, resulting in a final and binding arbitration decision and award, pursuant to the parties' mutually agreed upon arbitration procedures and H.R.S. § 89-11(d)." In his decision, Judge Heely had considered H.R.S. § 84-]U(b), which allows legislative bodies to accept or reject cost items 1ti3LeSl by the patties, with H.R.S. § 89-11(dj. Judge HeelEy stated, the words `final and binding' should be given their plain and literal meaning. Any other construction leads to an absurd result." SHOPO is mindful of the Council's concern regarding 1-lawaii's economy being perceived as "flat" when compared to the mainland economy. liowcver, SHOPO believes Hawaii County has nevertheless performed admirably. This may be due in pan to the expanded runway at Kona, which has resuhed in an increase in Japan Airline and United Airline flights directly to Kona, therefore providing a significant economic boost to the County. Furthermore, unfunded reserve balances arc realized by the County every year. SHOPO believes that the wage increases resulting from the Arbitration decision are reasonable, and will not have a disastrotu impact on the Employers' ability to provide essential services and functions to the public. The wage increases awarded by the arbitration panel were far less than what SHOPO had been seeking 12°10, which is actually half of what is needed in Oder for our police officers to reach parity with police officers on the mainland. Many of our polio officers are leaving for higher salaried jurisdictions such as Seattle and other western cities due to the fact that Hawaii police officers are paid significantly less than their mainland counterpart.5. SHOPO believes that we will continue to tole our highly traine3 police officers unless we begin to dose the gap between police salaries here end on the mainland. rA~ lTa 6 ~ 3. OZ SHOPU urges the Council to pass Resolution No. 195-97. P 'A Poircz prgnnrzat~on for Pahce OIlirers Only" IIA~. Cpl'@~Sp~ C~o~VpN UL Irk^^' 1 ~ F101/