2025-03-13 Merit Appeals Board Minutes

Home

Merit Appeals Board March 13, 2025 MS. TAVARES: Thank you. Quite frankly, the County agrees with a lot of the content of Mr. Hong's filing this morning with regards to the objections. As proposed, the Order clearly exceeds the scope of authority that MAB has with restructuring what was, essentially, an agreement reached via HRS 89-5 with regards to the Collective Bargaining Agreement. And I think the Order is —lacks in sufficiency with regards to its Findings. There are findings in here that are completely contrary to the hearings that were had specifically, with regards to paragraphI guess it would be Paragraph 3, on page 2, where MAB is listing the reason for cancellation that is not what Director Tokihiro testified to. The reason for the cancellation was, essentially, a remedy for a Chapter 89 grievance that was filed and approved by HGEA and the County. And what the Board is effectively attempting to do with this Order is go beyond the scope of jurisdiction that this Board has. And indicating in here the reason for the cancellation was the failure of Respondent to properly apply the 5% relatively equal provision that is not what she testified to. The reason for the cancellation needs to be clear that it was the "remedy" that was reached in a grievance proceeding and the grievance, itself, was based on non -selection for a promotion as a result of a violation of the contract in the selection process —and that is specifically what she testified to. Furthermore, as noted in Mr. Hong's memo this morning, fashioning a remedy to now have HFD go back and apply 5% relatively equal provision —again, is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of MAB because you're effectively attempting to dictate what is governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement and labor laws —and it's very concerning. And I think, likewise, as Mr. Hong indicated the County will be taking the next step as well, should the Board proceed with the Order as it is written. Furthermore, on page 3, the very first line at the top, it says, "...Respondent's documentation circulated to its employees, it is (sic.) noted as a demotion for Appellant" there was not a single document that was provided that had that language on there. So, I'm not sure where the Board is making that finding or what that is in relation to —but it completely contradicts the facts and the testimony that was had at the hearing. There is no documentation with the word "demotion" on it —at least, that was presented to the Board. CHR. CABANAS: I thought Mr. Kaye, in his testimony, said there was a newsletter or something that said it was a demotion and that's how the employees were ridiculing him. MS. TAVARES: I think, with all due respect, there was some feelings and overstatement of that, but to put it as a Finding of Fact when we haven't seen an actual document that has that Page 8