Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> 11111110~ --No <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 0 HAWAII DIVISION <br /> 495 Manono Street <br /> 0 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4422 Telephone: 808.935.6841 Hawaii Government Employees Association <br /> Working Together for Hawaii www.hgea.org Facsimile: 808.961.2437 AFSCME Local 152, AFL-CIO <br /> County Council <br /> County of Hawaii <br /> Testimony by <br /> HGEA/AFSCME Local 152 <br /> March 25, 2008 <br /> Bill 209 (Draft 3) - An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2, Article 15 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 <br /> (2005 Edition As Amended). Relating to Administrative Fines for Violations of the County Code of Ethics <br /> <br /> The Hawaii Government Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 152, AFL-CIO opposes Bill 209 (Draft <br /> 3) that would amend the Hawaii County Code by authorizing the Board of Ethics to issue administrative <br /> fines to legislators and county employees, including those covered by a collective bargaining <br /> agreement. We do not support administrative fines to be imposed upon bargaining unit employees. <br /> <br /> Each collective bargaining agreement contains a discipline article that permits an employer to discipline <br /> bargaining unit employees only for just or proper cause. Over the years, just or proper cause has been <br /> defined through arbitration decisions. One widely accepted principle is the so-called "Seven Tests" that <br /> are used to determine if an employer took action that meets the criteria of just or proper cause. Our <br /> contracts are negotiated with Hawaii County, not the Board of Ethics. The authority of interpreting and <br /> applying the contracts for management is vested with the line departments and the Department of <br /> Human Resources, not the Board of Ethics. <br /> <br /> In addition, employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement can only be disciplined once for a <br /> specific offense. This is the concept of double jeopardy. Once discipline is imposed and accepted, it <br /> cannot be increased, nor any other punishment be imposed, otherwise the employee is unfairly <br /> subjected to double jeopardy. The principle of double jeopardy has been applied by arbitrators to <br /> prohibit the imposition of two successive penalties for the same offense. We consider an administrative <br /> fine imposed by the Board of Ethics and a written reprimand, suspension or termination for the same <br /> offense to be double jeopardy. Criminal penalties are entirely different and would not be subject to the <br /> double jeopardy issue. <br /> County employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement should be subject to ethical standards; <br /> however, it must be the appointing authority with input from the Board of Ethics to decide what penalty is <br /> appropriate to that particular case. The fact that an appointing authority may not agree with the Board of <br /> Ethics' recommended penalty is not necessarily a problem. The appointing authority must issue <br /> discipline according to the standard of just or proper cause negotiated under Chapter 89, HRS. <br /> Therefore, if Bill 209 (Draft 3) is amended to remove bargaining unit employees, we could support this <br /> legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on Bill 209 with the suggested <br /> amendment. <br /> <br /> <br /> Respectfully submitted, Comm. N 8x16. /U <br /> <br /> Ref. To: 0?°ZO <br /> Sharon Morris Ref. Bete. <br /> Hawaii Division Chief <br />