Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> Liar-11-08 03:44pe Frw-MA/AFSCLE LOCAL 152 +8085284059 T-T99 P.OV02 F-940 <br /> <br /> <br /> FiC1EIPl Phi <br /> we MUM Sunat, Suite 601 <br /> 110nolu1u, Hawiil %813-2951 Telephone 808536.2351 Maw xp rn E~~pplloy'pp4ssx~ation <br /> wonnnp mRenar Mrami! r nvw.hgaa-org fiaan9e:80&518.e099 T111ITe a: ri a l"O t1 <br /> County Council <br /> Counly of Hawari C u_ .'ed ".II <br /> t'AUNT' <br /> Testimony by <br /> HGEA/AFSCME Local 152 <br /> March 12, 2008 <br /> (ftl 209 (Draft 3) - An Ord wm &Mft Chaff' 2. Adide 15 of the Nawdl County Code 1983 [2005 Edition As <br /> Amendedl Relating to Ad es Fides for VWAom of On County Code of Ethics <br /> <br /> The Hawaii Government Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 152, AFL-CIO opposes 99 209 (Draft 3) that would amend <br /> the Hawall County Code by authorf"the Board of Ethics to issue admihistr4stive fines to legfeN= and county employees, <br /> including those covered by a collective bargainitg agreement. We do not support administrative fines to be imposed upon <br /> bargakhirg unit employees. <br /> Each collective bargaining agreement contains a diecipfne article that permits an employer to disc*w bargaining unit <br /> employees only for just or proper cause. Over the years, just or proper cause has been defined trough arbitration decisions. <br /> One widely accepted principle is the 90-~ 4Seven Teste' that are used to determine If an employer took action that sleets <br /> the criterlo of Just or proper cause. Our contracts are negotiated with Hawaii County, not the Board of Ethics. The authority of <br /> interpreting and applyimg the cOntracts for managenrient Is vested with the fine departmenfs and the Deparbner it of Human <br /> Resources, not the Board of Ethos. <br /> In addition, employees covered by a colective bargaining agreemert can only be dsciplned once for a specific offense. This <br /> is the concept of double jeopardy. Once disiaplirie is Imposed and aooepfed, d camxx be increased, nor any other punishment <br /> be imposed, otherwise the employee is unfairly sublarled to double Jeopardy. The principle of double Jeopardy has been <br /> appged by arbitrators to prohibit the inposlion of two awcoss a penalties for the same dknsa We consider an <br /> administrable fine imposed by the Board of Ethics and a Wftn reprimand. strspeFWM or termination for the same offense to <br /> be double Jeopardy. Crimes penalise are entirely dtferent and would not be shrbod to the double jeopardy issue. <br /> <br /> County employees covered by a collective bacgaimg agreement should be subject to etlawl ft darbe: however, it must be <br /> the appoircirg aWu* with kpX from the Board of Ethics to decide what penalty is Wmprbb to that Wbc uw case" The <br /> fact that an appoi nhg authority may not agree with the Board of DOW recommended penalty Is not necessarily a problem. <br /> The appotmtrg atom" mat due discipline according b the standard d Just or proper cause negodded under Chapter 89. <br /> HRS. The Board of Ethics fofioiris a ctflerent process - the Hewitt Adri *MWve Procedures Act wxw Chapter 91, HRS. <br /> Chapter e% MRS takes precedence over all conldctng statutes and preempfs all contrary local ordinances, executive orders, <br /> legislation or rules adopted by the State. a county. or any depaMrent or agermy. Thank you forthe opportunity to provide <br /> testimony on this Important pubic policy issue. <br /> % ufiy s~utbcm1w. <br /> K`.k-- rut O <br /> Kevin Mullgarl <br /> Public Policy Specialist <br /> <br /> <br /> Comm. No. 0 e C <br /> Ref. To: haaaawd 06 <br /> Ref. Date MAR 19. Anna ' ' <br />