The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0453.011 2000-2002 HRLE RNUENUE Fax~808-961-6630 Jan 23 '02 1409 P. 01 is ' 2 Jr~ r ~ i'i'i A ^ 1333 Waianuenue Avenue / Hilo. Naw~ii 96720 / (308) 961-66~ FAX (g08) 981--6630 tit®r~tive ~r~ ~nt~r y [ Y i .ter . - d~.S~x,. r k r. x t rr> d a1- J.Soa ~f2...; To: C ~u ~ COMFANY:1~-~v C--~~ ~I DA~'~; / Yom` ~ Total nuanber of pages (iaxcladirag cover Sheet) ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS/ NOT EING SEl~d'T BY MAIL. C,~.~~ rn.~-~ b~-ys Tfae inforaraeataon coretaeneei ia. flats feacsdraaide raaessagc to atPorney prdvdde~ed and conjtderatsad inforanation intended only for tlac arse of dlae ttsdtvtdarad or etattty taaataed above. ~'tlte reeudes~ of crisis rasessa~e is not the Intended rectpreast, or the eanpdoyee or a~~?erat resporastbde ro deliver tt to the intended rectlaient, yvu acre hereby aaottf ed that Wray dtsSCaadi9EO's$on1 dictvil~tatton tsr copying of thie coraarPeaaasi&a8ron is strtctdy g7rodsibited. If yon have received PleiS cornrrasantcatio€a in error, please immetedy notefy ras $y tedephorse, d return the ort~ttaad of this eransrnittal to aas at the above a~ress vice cdse U S. P®strai .~tivtee. ~'daaask. 3'®u. , ~L,E,ASE GALL ~ A`T (808) 961-6644 IMMEDIA'TEL.Y IF YOZJ HAVE ANY PI~OI3LEM ~-EIVINCi~ '~°t~IS T'RANSI?2]((T°TAL. Tb„at>Ic You. Comte, ~Ioe • Filt~ i>To. 1ltef. To: ~ RCS. to ~ k ~~f HALE ANUENUE Fax~808-961-6630 Jan 23 '02 1410 P. 02 1333 Waiar~u~nue Av®n~/h~alo< ~icav+rt~'~ 96720 (r3fl8) 961-66~A 0 961-6630 ft~ratly~ C~r~ Ct~ January 23, 2002 Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Council ~iternber Hawaii County Council 25 ,~upuni Street, Suite 209 H i io, FI I 96720 Dear Council N6ember Leithead-Todd: Thank you for inviting me to express our views on Resolution No. 160-02 which is pending before the l-lawaii County Council. I arr9 extremely reluctant, as advised by our legal counsel, to appear at any meeting, ®f the County Council concerning our negotiations. This woaald imply that the Coune'al has the ability to question me about negotiations and our p®sition. dale ,~nuea~ue does not believe that passage o$ Res®lution No. 160-02 would serve any legitimate purpose and, in fact, could ereate a dangerous precedent. Negotiations between Hale Anuenue and the ILWU are governed by federal labor law, specifically the National Labor Relations Acct, 29 1.1.5.C.~ 151 et.seq. if either party believes that the other has not bargained in good faith, then the only remedy is to bring charges bef®re the National Labor Relations Board C'~1LRI3"). The NLRB is the government agency created by Congress with the exclusive authority over such negotiations. HALE ANUENUE Fax~808-961-6630 Jan 23 '02 1410 P. 03 Ms. Bobby dean Leithead~~'odd January 23, 2002 Page 2 You should ask the Union whether it has Bono to the NLRB and if so what the NLRB has ruled. If the NLftl3 has not ruled that Hale Anuenue has failed to bargain in good faith, why should the council pass a resolution declarirog that it should bargain in good faith? The only reason the Union is before the Council is that it cannot get the federal agency that regulates these matters to rule in its favor. There is no doubt that the only reason the Union canye to the council was to try and get something that they could use against male Aonuenue in negotiations. The Union, if the Resolution passes, will proclaim that the Counc'sl has.taken its side, it will tell us that we must now concede because the Council t®Id us to. The Council is being used by the Union to fain what it has been unable to attain at the negotiating table. You should also confirm with the Union what it has told our spokesperson: that it has no ~.hanges ~rorrt its last position. In other words, the Union has no hesitation to come before the Council and complain that dale Anuenue has refused to change its position on certain issues; yet does not feel corrtpeiled to change its position. Anyone who believes the Councii in enacting this Resolution is not taking a position, is simpiy incorrect. ~'he Union would not be there unless they thought they were gaining a club to use at negotiations. Why should the Council enact this Resolution if federal law gives both sides the right to say "no" iro negotiations? Bt is apparent from the presentation that the Union made to the Council that it does not want the Courscil to understand that Hale Anuertue has-that right under federal law, and neither the NLRB ®r a court can force Male Anuenue to agree to a proposal. The Council is being asked to interfere with those rights; the Union is asking the Courted to declare what would be a fair contract thereby pressuring ~°laie Anuenue to concede on the remaining issues. In a case involving the County of Los Angeles, actions it took with respect to refusing to renew a taxi company's license because of its labor relations policies resulted in substantial liability .against the county in favor of the taxi corrtpany. Golden State Transit Corp. v. Cif of Los Angeles 475 U.S. 6Og (1966). local governments may not punish private corvtpanies for their labor relations. Although we d® not view this resolution as pur.;shirtg Hale Anuenue, we want to emphasise the breadth of th~._ r I!p a of p„r~or~ as it appl'ees to labor negotiatioe~s. The Council should also consider whether, by passing this Resolution, it would be encouraging the ILWU, other unions,' and even employers to use the Council as a vehicle for trying to put pressure on the other side in labor negotiations. The result would be that the Council would be distracted from its primary business and become far _ _ HRLE RNUENUE Fax~808-961-6630 Jan 23 '02 1411 P. 04 Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd January zs, zooz Page 3 too involved in labor managerrrsent negotiations between private companies and labor unions. The s1.~gge5tion that the Council has, from firms to time, bec®me involved in issues outside its jurisdiction simply does n®t answer the question of whether it is the Council's business t® pass reso0utions concerning negotiations between parties in the private sector, an area over which the Council has rso jurisdiction and is forbidders by fed®ral lava from bec®rning involved. Federal lave protects our right to negotiate and while federal saw requires negotiations, it does not require an agreerraent. Indeed, neither the National Labor Relations Board nor federal court could force us to agree to a proposal. The Council is being used by the Union to try to gain what it carsnat gain at the bargaining table. If this matter Is to be resolved, it can be resolved only at the bargaining table. A public hearing is not only improper, it is irvsprudent and should cause y®u.and other Council Members grave concern whether you are transgressing the liras between a corscern for your constituents, and improper rv~eddling in matters reserved to the €ederal National Labor Relations Board. Sincerely, Ivan . Yama to Exec ti a lair for cc: )erases Arakaki, Council Chaire~vsan Aaron Chung, Council Member Leningrad Elarionoff, Caauncil Member Julie Jacobson, Council Member Nancy F'isicchio, Council Member Gary Safarik, Council Merr~ber J. Curtis fiyler III, Counci! Member ®orvsinic Yagong, Council Merraber