COM 0603.001 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

N~W~e ~ Y STATE OF HAWAII ORGANIZATION OF POLICE OFFICERS ~ Qy 1717 Hoe Street. Horwlulu. Hawaii 96619-3125 n Telephone 1809) 9474676, FAX (908) 841-4918 QCK,`E Or Hawaii County Council Finance Committee Aaron Chung, Chair Written Tectimony sn_ favor of Resolution 1V ~ 195-97 Chairman Chung and Councilmemhers~ My name is Emory Springer. I am the Chairman of the Hawaii Chapter of the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO). SHOPO supports the approval of cost items for BU l2 for the Contract Period July 1, 1997, through lone 30, 1999, as decided by an arbitration panel. Under Hawaii's Collective Bargaining Law, Chapter R9, Hawaii Revised Statutes (H.R.S.), specifically, H.K.S. § 89-11(d), "ltJhe decision of the arbitration panel shall be final and binding upon the parties on all provisions submitted to the arbitration panel." This same section also provides, "[a]ll 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 "adept or reject" cost items resulting from a final and binding arbitration. In an unpublished 1996 decision, then Circuit Iudge Dan Heely, in his Decision and Order Granting Hawaii Fire Fighters Association, Local 1463's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, concluded as a matter of law that under H.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 an expeditious marvrer once negotiable issues proceed to dispute resolution, resulting in a final and binding arbitration decision and award, pursuant to [he patties' mutually agreed upon arbitration procedures and H.R.S- § 89-11(d)." In his decision, Judge lieeley had considered H.R.S. § 89-10ib), which allows legislative bodies to accept or reject cost items negotiated by the parties, with H.R.S. § $9-11(d). 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 Hawaii's economy being perceived as "flat" when compared to the mainland economy. However, SHOPO believes Hawaii County has nevertheless performed admirably, This may be due in part to the expended runway at Kona, which has resulted in an increase in Japan Airline and United Airline flights directly to Kona, therefore providing a significant economic boos[ to the County- furthermore, unfunded reserve balances are realized by the County every year. SHOPO believes that the wage increases resulting fmm the Arbitration decision are reasonable, and will not have a disastrous impart on the Employers' ability to provide essential services and functions to the public. SHOPO urges the Council [o pass Resolution No. 195-97.