§380-13 When chapter applicable;
definitions. When used in this chapter, and for the purposes of this
chapter:
(1) A case shall be held to involve or to grow out of
a labor dispute when the case involves persons who are engaged in the same
industry, trade, craft, or occupation; or have direct or indirect interests
therein; or who are employees of the same employer; or who are members of the
same or an affiliated organization of employers or employees; whether the
dispute is (A) between one or more employers or associations of employers and
one or more employees or associations of employees; (B) between one or more employers
or associations of employers and one or more employers or associations of
employers; or (C) between one or more employees or associations of employees
and one or more employees or associations of employees; or when the case
involves any conflicting or competing interests in a "labor dispute"
(as defined in this section) of "persons participating or interested"
therein (as defined in this section).
(2) A person or association shall be held to be a
person participating or interested in a labor dispute if relief is sought
against the person or it, and if the person or it is engaged in the same
industry, trade, craft, or occupation in which the dispute occurs, or has a
direct or indirect interest therein, or is a member, officer, or agent of any
association composed in whole or in part of employers or employees engaged in
such industry, trade, craft, or occupation.
(3) The term "labor dispute" includes any
controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the
association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless
of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer
and employee. [L 1963, c 200, §13; Supp, §90B-13; HRS §380-13; gen ch 1985]
Notes of Decisions
McCabe Hamilton & Renny Co., Ltd. v. Chung, 43 P.3d 244 (Haw. App. 2002).
· cites it 5× “Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 380-13 (1993) provides: When used in this chapter, and for the purposes of this chapter: (1) A case shall be held to involve or to grow out of a labor dispute when the case involves persons who are engaged in tire same industry, trade, craft, or…”
Abilla v. Agsalud, 741 P.2d 1272 (Haw. 1987).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 380-13(3) (1985) reads: The term “labor dispute” includes any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of…”
Haw. Health Sys. Corp. v. United Pub. Workers, 415 P.3d 937 (Haw. App. 2018).
· cites it 8× “Because both the "any controversy" and "condition of employment" requirements were met, we further conclude that the "labor dispute" requirement was met and this court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to HRS § 380-10.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 380-13(1) — 1 case
Haw. Health Sys. Corp. v. United Pub. Workers, 415 P.3d 937 (Haw. App. 2018).
“Because both the "any controversy" and "condition of employment" requirements were met, we further conclude that the "labor dispute" requirement was met and this court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to HRS § 380-10.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 380-13(3) — 3 cases
McCabe Hamilton & Renny Co., Ltd. v. Chung, 43 P.3d 244 (Haw. App. 2002).
“Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 380-13 (1993) provides: When used in this chapter, and for the purposes of this chapter: (1) A case shall be held to involve or to grow out of a labor dispute when the case involves persons who are engaged in tire same industry, trade, craft, or…”
Abilla v. Agsalud, 741 P.2d 1272 (Haw. 1987).
“HRS § 380-13(3) (1985) reads: The term “labor dispute” includes any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of…”
Haw. Health Sys. Corp. v. United Pub. Workers, 415 P.3d 937 (Haw. App. 2018).
“Because both the "any controversy" and "condition of employment" requirements were met, we further conclude that the "labor dispute" requirement was met and this court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to HRS § 380-10.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.