§396-8 Employee responsibility and rights.
(a) Employee compliance. Each employee shall comply with occupational safety
and health standards and all rules, regulations and orders issued under this
chapter which are applicable to the employee's own actions and conduct.
(b) Complaints to the department. Complaints
may be made to the department and where reasonable grounds exist for the
department to believe there may be a hazard, there shall be an inspection in
response to the complaint.
(c) Opportunity for employees to participate
in inspections. At the time and place of inspections under section
396-4(b)(2), (3), and (4), an opportunity shall be provided for employees and
their representatives to bring possible violations to the attention of the
authorized representative of the director conducting said inspection in order
to aid inspections. This requirement may be fulfilled by allowing a
representative of the employees and a representative of the employer to
accompany the director's authorized representative during the physical
inspection of the workplace, or in absence of the employees' representative,
there shall be a consultation with a reasonable number of employees.
(d) Notice of nonaction to employees. The
department shall notify the employees when the department decides not to take
compliance action as a result of violations alleged by any employee or any
representative of the employees. This notice shall state the decision not to
take compliance action, the reasons therefor, and the procedures for informal
review of such decision.
(e) Discharge or discrimination against
employees for exercising any right under this chapter is prohibited. In
consideration of this prohibition:
(1) No person shall discharge, suspend or otherwise
discriminate in terms and conditions of employment against any employee by
reason of:
(A) The employee's failure or refusal to
operate or handle any machine, device, apparatus, or equipment which is in any
unsafe condition; or
(B) The employee's failure or refusal to
engage in unsafe practices in violation of this chapter or of any standard,
rule, regulation, citation or order issued under the authority of this chapter;
(2) Upon discretion of the director or request, names
of complainants may be withheld from the employer;
(3) No person shall discharge or in any manner
discriminate against any employee because the employee has filed any complaint
or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to
this chapter, or has testified or intends to testify in any such proceeding, or
acting to exercise or exercised on behalf of the employee or others any right
afforded by this chapter;
(4) Any employee who believes that there has been a
discharge or discrimination against the employee by any person in violation of
this subsection may, within sixty days after the violation occurs, file a
complaint with the director alleging unlawful discharge or discrimination and
setting forth the circumstances thereof;
(5) Upon receipt of the complaint, the director shall
investigate to determine if a discharge or discrimination in violation of this
subsection has occurred;
(6) If upon investigation the director determines
that the provisions of this subsection have been violated, the director shall
order the employer to provide all appropriate relief to the employee, including
rehiring or reinstating the employee to the former position with back pay and
restoration of seniority;
(7) Within ninety days of receipt of a complaint
filed under this subsection, unless extended by the director, the director
shall notify the employee of the final determination and any subsequent action
the department will take to resolve the complaint; and
(8) Nothing in this subsection shall preclude any
employee or representative of an employee from simultaneously pursuing a cause
of action for injunctive relief or any other remedy provided by law.
(f) Except for those complainants alleging
violations under subsection (e) above, names of all complainants and witnesses
shall be withheld from the employer unless prior permission is given by the
complainant or witness to release the complainant's or witness' name. [L 1972,
c 57, pt of §1; am L 1974, c 152, §4; am L 1976, c 95, §7; am L 1977, c 179,
§2; gen ch 1985; am L 1993, c 204, §1]
Notes of Decisions
Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 919 P.2d 263 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 8× “Under HRS § 396-8(b) (1993), entitled Employee Responsibility and Rights, an employee such as Iddings may file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations "and where reasonable grounds exist for the department to believe there may be a hazard, there shall…”
Adams v. CDM Media USA, Inc., 346 P.3d 70 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 4× “21 In Si-Nor, it was alleged that the employer discriminated against the employee for having reported work place safety issues, in violation of HRS § 396-8(e)(3). Si-Nor, 2009 WL 405926 , at *7-*8.”
Taylor v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 978 P.2d 740 (Haw. 1999).
· cites it 2× “2d 48, 54 (1995) (holding that a release could not extinguish an employer's statutory lien and subrogation rights, created in the workers' compensation context pursuant to HRS § 396-8, without employer's consent) (quoting Peters v.”
Marlow v. AMR Servs. Corp., 870 F. Supp. 295 (D. Haw. 1994).
· cites it 2× “The Complaint also alleged a violation of Haw. Rev.Stat. § 396-8(e) (Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Law).”
Makaneole v. Gampon, 776 P.2d 402 (Haw. App. 1989).
· cites it 3× “Other provisions of § 396-8 encourage an employee to participate in enforcement of the regulations, and prohibit retaliation by an employer against an employee who refuses to operate or handle unsafe machinery or equipment, or to engage in unsafe practices, or who files a…”
Kohl v. Smythe, 25 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Haw. 1998).
“§ 396-8(e)(3) or otherwise. Furthermore, there remains a factual dispute whether Plaintiff was either (1) a government volunteer or (2) an independent contractor.”
Dir., Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations v. Si-Nor, Inc., 201 P.3d 628 (Haw. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “On December 24, 2002, Appellant-Appellee Director of the State of Hawaii, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (Director), through HIOSH, determined that Si-Nor violated Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 396-8(e) by discriminating against Ke-a when Si-Nor terminated Ke-a…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 396-8(a) — 1 case
Makaneole v. Gampon, 776 P.2d 402 (Haw. App. 1989).
“Other provisions of § 396-8 encourage an employee to participate in enforcement of the regulations, and prohibit retaliation by an employer against an employee who refuses to operate or handle unsafe machinery or equipment, or to engage in unsafe practices, or who files a…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 396-8(b) — 1 case
Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 919 P.2d 263 (Haw. 1996).
“Under HRS § 396-8(b) (1993), entitled Employee Responsibility and Rights, an employee such as Iddings may file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations "and where reasonable grounds exist for the department to believe there may be a hazard, there shall…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 396-8(e) — 3 cases
Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 919 P.2d 263 (Haw. 1996).
“Under HRS § 396-8(b) (1993), entitled Employee Responsibility and Rights, an employee such as Iddings may file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations "and where reasonable grounds exist for the department to believe there may be a hazard, there shall…”
Marlow v. AMR Servs. Corp., 870 F. Supp. 295 (D. Haw. 1994).
“The Complaint also alleged a violation of Haw. Rev.Stat. § 396-8(e) (Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Law).”
Dir., Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations v. Si-Nor, Inc., 201 P.3d 628 (Haw. App. 2009).
“On December 24, 2002, Appellant-Appellee Director of the State of Hawaii, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (Director), through HIOSH, determined that Si-Nor violated Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 396-8(e) by discriminating against Ke-a when Si-Nor terminated Ke-a…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 396-8(e)(1)(B) — 1 case
Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 919 P.2d 263 (Haw. 1996).
“Under HRS § 396-8(b) (1993), entitled Employee Responsibility and Rights, an employee such as Iddings may file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations "and where reasonable grounds exist for the department to believe there may be a hazard, there shall…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 396-8(e)(3) — 3 cases
Adams v. CDM Media USA, Inc., 346 P.3d 70 (Haw. 2015).
“21 In Si-Nor, it was alleged that the employer discriminated against the employee for having reported work place safety issues, in violation of HRS § 396-8(e)(3). Si-Nor, 2009 WL 405926 , at *7-*8.”
Kohl v. Smythe, 25 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Haw. 1998).
“§ 396-8(e)(3) or otherwise. Furthermore, there remains a factual dispute whether Plaintiff was either (1) a government volunteer or (2) an independent contractor.”
Dir., Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations v. Si-Nor, Inc., 201 P.3d 628 (Haw. App. 2009).
“On December 24, 2002, Appellant-Appellee Director of the State of Hawaii, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (Director), through HIOSH, determined that Si-Nor violated Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 396-8(e) by discriminating against Ke-a when Si-Nor terminated Ke-a…”
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.