HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0870.006 2006-2008
Liar-11-08 03:44pe Frw-MA/AFSCLE LOCAL 152 +8085284059 T-T99 P.OV02 F-940
FiC1EIPl Phi
we MUM Sunat, Suite 601
110nolu1u, Hawiil %813-2951 Telephone 808536.2351 Maw xp rn E~~pplloy'pp4ssx~ation
wonnnp mRenar Mrami! r nvw.hgaa-org fiaan9e:80&518.e099 T111ITe a: ri a l"O t1
County Council
Counly of Hawari C u_ .'ed ".II
t'AUNT'
Testimony by
HGEA/AFSCME Local 152
March 12, 2008
(ftl 209 (Draft 3) - An Ord wm &Mft Chaff' 2. Adide 15 of the Nawdl County Code 1983 [2005 Edition As
Amendedl Relating to Ad es Fides for VWAom of On County Code of Ethics
The Hawaii Government Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 152, AFL-CIO opposes 99 209 (Draft 3) that would amend
the Hawall County Code by authorf"the Board of Ethics to issue admihistr4stive fines to legfeN= and county employees,
including those covered by a collective bargainitg agreement. We do not support administrative fines to be imposed upon
bargakhirg unit employees.
Each collective bargaining agreement contains a diecipfne article that permits an employer to disc*w bargaining unit
employees only for just or proper cause. Over the years, just or proper cause has been defined trough arbitration decisions.
One widely accepted principle is the 90-~ 4Seven Teste' that are used to determine If an employer took action that sleets
the criterlo of Just or proper cause. Our contracts are negotiated with Hawaii County, not the Board of Ethics. The authority of
interpreting and applyimg the cOntracts for managenrient Is vested with the fine departmenfs and the Deparbner it of Human
Resources, not the Board of Ethos.
In addition, employees covered by a colective bargaining agreemert can only be dsciplned once for a specific offense. This
is the concept of double jeopardy. Once disiaplirie is Imposed and aooepfed, d camxx be increased, nor any other punishment
be imposed, otherwise the employee is unfairly sublarled to double Jeopardy. The principle of double Jeopardy has been
appged by arbitrators to prohibit the inposlion of two awcoss a penalties for the same dknsa We consider an
administrable fine imposed by the Board of Ethics and a Wftn reprimand. strspeFWM or termination for the same offense to
be double Jeopardy. Crimes penalise are entirely dtferent and would not be shrbod to the double jeopardy issue.
County employees covered by a collective bacgaimg agreement should be subject to etlawl ft darbe: however, it must be
the appoircirg aWu* with kpX from the Board of Ethics to decide what penalty is Wmprbb to that Wbc uw case" The
fact that an appoi nhg authority may not agree with the Board of DOW recommended penalty Is not necessarily a problem.
The appotmtrg atom" mat due discipline according b the standard d Just or proper cause negodded under Chapter 89.
HRS. The Board of Ethics fofioiris a ctflerent process - the Hewitt Adri *MWve Procedures Act wxw Chapter 91, HRS.
Chapter e% MRS takes precedence over all conldctng statutes and preempfs all contrary local ordinances, executive orders,
legislation or rules adopted by the State. a county. or any depaMrent or agermy. Thank you forthe opportunity to provide
testimony on this Important pubic policy issue.
% ufiy s~utbcm1w.
K`.k-- rut O
Kevin Mullgarl
Public Policy Specialist
Comm. No. 0 e C
Ref. To: haaaawd 06
Ref. Date MAR 19. Anna ' '