COM 0945.000 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

n ~ Richard D. Nurdeman, Esq. David Z. Arakawa, ssq. J. P. Schmidt, Esq. August 4, 1998 Page 8 Following the amendment, S.B. No. 1696-70, S.D. 1, H.D. 1, and H.D. 2, read as follows: If the State legislature or the legislative body of any county rejects any of the cost items submitted to them, all cost items suhmitted shall be returned to the parties for further bargaining. This provision was enacted as S 89-10(b), ERS, and has remained unchanged since its passage in 1970. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that there is no statutory basis upon which either party is entitled to reopen the non-cost items in the event a legislative body has failed to approve any cost item submitted to it. Finally, the parties enter into the ne iations and reach agreements knowing that any agreement that ncludes cost items is subject to approval by the respective legislative bodies. Moreover, rejection of the cost items by a legislative body returns the rejected cost items to the parties for continued negotiations. While the parties may be able to negotiate the rejected cost items without reopening the non-cost items, 89- 10(b) does not appear to preclude the parties from reopening non- cost items by mutual consent if they deem it necessary to reach agreement on cost items. The failure of the Legislature to approve any of the cost items submitted for the collective bargaining units 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13 constitutes a rejection of 3te the the Legislature. Consequently, pursuant to s 89-10(b). ERs. cost items are to be returned to tha parties for additional bargaining. The rejection does LQ.t apply to non-cost items and the agreement of the parties as to non-cost items remains in effect. In addition to the foregoing, the Maui County Corporation counsel raises an additional question concerning the timing of the payment of the salary increases. Mr. Schmidt asserts that the legislature appropriated funds for the salaries of employees in each of the respective bargaining units. Although such appropriations did not include money to pay the negotiated increases, Mr. Schmidt posits that there is sufficient funding to pay the negotiated increases although a payroll lag or reduction in force may be necessary. Therefore, Mr. Schmidt asks whether Maui County can begin paying the wage increases now. 08/04/98 17:23 TX/RX N0.8856 P.009