HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0603.004 1996-1998 I
HAWAN
s ~ ~
w
STATE OF HAWAII ORGANIZATION OF POLICE OFFICERS
~ Qy 1717 Hoe Street. Honolulu. Hawaii 96819-3125
o Telephone 1808) 84T4fi76. FAX (808) 8At-4818
ke
' RECEIVl~ ''M
Hawaii County Council ltma___--__-~-~_r sy---- -
Finance Committee ~0~-------='
County Council ~ F
Aaron Chung, Chair
Written Testimonvsn_favtr of Recnlutinn Nn 195-97
Chairman Chung and Councilmemhers:
My name is Emory Springer. I am the Chairman of the Hawaii Chapter taf the State of Hawaii
Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO). SHOPO supports the approval of cost items for BLT 1Z for the
Contract Period July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1999, as decided by an arbitration panel.
Under Hawaii's Collective Bargaining Law, Chapter 89, Hawaii Revised Statutes (H.R.S.), specifically,
H.K.S. § 89-11(d), "(tJhe decision of the arbitration panel shall be final and binding upon the parties on all
provisions submitted to the arbitration panel." This same section also provides, "[a]ll items requiring any
moneys for implementation shall be subject to appropriations by the appropriate legislative bodies
However, this language does not give legislative bodies the power to "accept or reject" cost items resulting from
a final and binding arbitration.
In an unpublished 1996 decision, then Circuit Judge Dan Heely, in his Decision and Order Granting
Hawaii Fire Fighters Association, Local 1463's Motion [o Confirm Arbitration Award, concluded as a matter of
law that under H.R.S. § 89-i l (d), "...cast items are made subject to the appropriations process, but no reference
to the possibility of rejection exists. The lack of [such) comports with legislative intention to defer to the
arbitration panel and achieve finality in an expeditious manner once negotiable issues proceed to dispute
resolution, resulting in a final and binding arbitration decision and award, pursuant to the patties' mutually
agreed upon arbitration procedures and H.R.S. § 89-11(d)."
In his decision, Judge lieeley had considered H.R.S. § 89-10(b), which allows legislative bodies to
accept or reject cost items neeotiated by the parties, with H.R.S. § 89-11(d). Judge Heeley stated, the words
'final and binding' should be given their plain and literal meaning. Any other construction leads to an absurd
result."
SHOPO is mindful of the Council's concern regarding Hawaii's economy being perceived as "flat"
when compared to the mainland economy. However, SHOPO believes Hawaii County has nevertheless
performed admirably. This may be due in part to the expanded runway at Kona, which has resulted in an
increase in Japan Airline and United Airline flights directly to Kona, therefore providing a significant economic
boost to the County. Furrhetmore, unfunded reserve balances are realized by the County every year.
SHOPO believes that the wage increases resulting from the Arbitration decision are reasonable, and will
not have a disastrous impact on the Employers' ability to provide essential services and functions tot a public.
Comm Dla CJ 3. ,O ~
SHOPO urges the Council [o pass Resolution No. 195-97. frlia ?{o 5
i'; esentijd ~ ~
Hef. Tot ,