2025-07-18 Merit Appeals Board Minutes

Home

Merit Appeals Board July 18, 2025 MR. DISHER: Nothing further. I submit on my submissions—yeah. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Thank you. Okay. MR. THOMAS: May I ask if we have heard all of the arguments that are pertinent to this jurisdictional question? CHR. CABANAS: I’ve asked both Mr. Hong and Mr. Disher and they don’t have anything else to provide, unless— MR. THOMAS: Okay. Because now what I’ve seen is that there’s the theory of this case that because he’s a probationary employee, that’s favorable to our jurisdiction and I haven’t heard anybody speak to that, yet. MR. DISHER: Under the section that he chose to pursue, that was the other argument in the original statement for jurisdiction regarding that he is not defined as a civil service employee yet because he did not pass probation. Yes, that is still also an argument. MR. THOMAS: So, is there an intent to speak to that at this point? MR. DISHER: I addressed it in my initial jurisdiction statement, and I stand by that. So, it is before you, if we can discuss it more. Mr. Hong can also address it as well. MR. THOMAS: I would like you, Mr. Hong, to speak to that if there’s something to say here. MR. HONG: So, as a probationary employee, that process is still part of the recruitment process according to the way that the department currently interprets its Rules. And so, when an employee doesn’t meet that—the requirements of probation, their alterna—they have the alternative—they have the only—actually, their only alternative is to appeal with the Merit Appeals Board. And the process of recruitment is within the Board’s jurisdiction, as we pointed out in 76-14(a)(1)—recruitment and examination. So, because he was still on probation, he does not qualify to—for representation by the respective collective bargaining representative, which would be, I guess, the HGEA in this case. He doesn’t qualify for that, so he’s on his own. And if he’s going to raise an issue with respect to recruitment and examination, which we are raising that issue—then he’s, certainly, entitled to pursue the appeal through the Merit Appeals Board. MR. DISHER: And, again, my position is from the start, this was not a question of recruitment and examination—and he always was pursing this as a discrimination complaint—that’s probably why he chose the employment action taken under Chapter 76, HRS option and not the recruitment and examination option, which was the first one available to him. Page 16