Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 76-1 (2026)

Purposes; merit principle

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PART I. GENERAL CIVIL SERVICE PROVISIONS

Note

Part heading amended by L 2000, c 253, §4.

§76-1 Purposes; merit principle. It is the purpose of this chapter to require each jurisdiction to establish and maintain a separately administered civil service system based on the merit principle. The merit principle is the selection of persons based on their fitness and ability for public employment and the retention of employees based on their demonstrated appropriate conduct and productive performance. It is also the purpose of this chapter to build a career service in government, free from coercive political influences, to render impartial service to the public at all times, according to the dictates of ethics and morality and in compliance with all laws.

In order to achieve these purposes, it is the declared policy of the State that the human resource program within each jurisdiction be administered in accordance with the following:

(1) Equal opportunity for all in compliance with all laws prohibiting discrimination. No person shall be discriminated against in examination, appointment, reinstatement, reemployment, promotion, transfer, demotion, or removal, with respect to any position when the work may be efficiently performed by the person without hazard or danger to the health and safety of the person or others;

(2) Impartial selection of individuals for public service by means of competitive tests which are fair, objective, and practical;

(3) Incentives for competent employees within the service, whether financial or promotional opportunities and other performance based group and individual awards that encourage continuous improvement to achieve superior performance;

(4) Reasonable job security for competent employees and discharge of unnecessary or inefficient employees with the right to grieve and appeal personnel actions through the:

(A) Contractual grievance procedure for employees covered by chapter 89; or

(B) Internal complaint procedures and the merit appeals board for employees excluded from coverage under chapter 89;

(5) Equal pay for equal work shall apply between classes in the same bargaining unit among jurisdictions for those classes determined to be equal through systematic classification of positions based on objective criteria and adequate job evaluation, unless it has been agreed in accordance with chapter 89 to negotiate the repricing of classes; and

(6) Harmonious and cooperative relations between government and its employees, including employee organizations representing them, to develop and maintain a well-trained, efficient, and productive work force that utilizes advanced technology to ensure effective government operations and delivery of public services. [L 1955, c 274, pt of §1; RL 1955, §3-1; am L 1963, c 14, §1; HRS §76-1; am L 1973, c 177, §1(1); am L 1984, c 101, §1; am L 1992, c 33, §5; am L 1994, c 56, §4; am L 2000, c 253, §5]

Law Journals and Reviews

Employee Rights Under Judicial Scrutiny: Prevalent Policy Discourse and the Hawai`i Supreme Court. 14 UH L. Rev. 189.

Case Notes

Public employment is not a fundamental constitutional right. 402 F. Supp. 84.

Rights existing by virtue of civil service status may be lost by repeal or amendment of the civil service law. 48 H. 370, 405 P.2d 772.

The general prohibition in §89-9(d) against a public employer and the exclusive representative of a collective bargaining unit agreeing to a "proposal inconsistent with merit principles" is subject to §89-9(d)'s provisions allowing for, inter alia, negotiation of promotion and demotion procedures in a collective bargaining agreement and a grievance process for violation thereof; this section, Revised Charter of Honolulu §§6-302, 6-306, 6-308, and rules of the civil service commission §§13-2 and 13-3 do not conflict with §89-9(d). 106 H. 205, 103 P.3d 365.

No basis to support a finding that arbitration award of remedial promotions of police officers to rank of sergeant with mandatory back pay violated the public policy of promotions of public employees in accordance with the merit principle. 135 H. 456, 353 P.3d 998 (2015).

Cited: 413 U.S. 601, 93 S. Ct. 2908.

Cited: 134 H. 155 (App.), 338 P.3d 1170 (2014).

Discussed: 133 H. 188, 325 P.3d 600 (2014).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Hoopai v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 103 P.3d 365 (Haw. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hoopai v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 103 P.3d 365 (Haw. 2004). · cites it 64× “inconsistent with merit principles" is subject to that statute's provisions allowing for, inter alia, negotiation of promotion and demotion procedures in a collective bargaining agreement and a grievance process for violation thereof, (2) that HRS § 76-1 (Supp.1999), Revised…”

United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 636, AFL-CIO v. Abercrombie., 325 P.3d 600 (Haw. 2014). · cites it 32× “At the time Konno was decided, HRS § 76-1 (1985) stated that it was the policy of the State that the personnel system be applied and administered in accordance with certain merit principles.”

Arbles v. Merit Appeals Bd.., 515 P.3d 217 (Haw. App. 2022). · cites it 35× “In addition, the language of the applicable collective bargaining agreement and the merit principle, HRS §76-1, must also be taken into account.”

In re Grievance Arbitration Between State of Hawaii Org. of Police Officers, 353 P.3d 998 (Haw. 2015). · cites it 6× “In its analysis, the ICA considered the public policies set forth in HRS §§ 76-1 and 89-9 but did not expressly resolve whether the agreement was contrary to public policy.”

Hawaii Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME Local 152 v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010). · cites it 2× “The employer and the exclusive representative shall not agree to any proposal that would be inconsistent with the merit principle or the principle of equal pay for equal work pursuant to section 76-1 or that would interfere with the rights and obligations of a public employer…”

Konno v. Cnty. of Hawai'i, 937 P.2d 397 (Haw. 1997). · cites it 2× “HRS § 76-1 (Supp.1996) provides in relevant part: Purposes of this chapter; statement of policy.”

In re Kuamoo, 382 P.3d 306 (Haw. App. 2016). · cites it 13× “]” Specifically, Appellants contend that PSD violated applicable laws because (1) PSD did not disclose its suspension policy to the Union: (2) PSD’s suspension policy violates the “merit principle,” as articulated in HRS § 76-1 (2012 Repl.): and (3) PSD was required to engage…”

In re the Grievance Arbitration Between State of Hawaii Org. of Police Officers & Cnty. of Kaua'i, 338 P.3d 1170 (Haw. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “” HRS § 76-1 (2012), entitled “Purposes; merit principle,” provides: It is the purpose of this chapter to require each jurisdiction to establish and maintain a separately administered civil service system based on the merit principle.”

In re Kuamoo., 421 P.3d 1262 (Haw. 2018). · cites it 10× “shall be governed by the merit principle"); HRS § 76-1. As explained below, we hold the department's unwritten policy violates the merit principle.”

United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 646 v. Hanneman, 105 P.3d 236 (Haw. 2005). “The employer and the exclusive representative shall not agree to any proposal which would be inconsistent with merit principles or the principle of equal pay for equal work pursuant to section 76-1, 76-2, 77-31, and 77-33, or which would interfere with the rights of a public…”

Gov't Employees Ass'n v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010). · cites it 2× “The employer and the exclusive representative shall not agree to any proposal that would be inconsistent with the merit principle or the principle of equal pay for equal work pursuant to section 76-1 or that would interfere with the rights and obligations of a public employer…”

Univ. Of Hawaii Prof. Assem. v. Tomasu, 900 P.2d 161 (Haw. 1995). “ganize for the purpose of collective bargaining, (2) requiring the public employers to negotiate with and enter into written agreements with exclusive representatives on matters of wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, while, at the same time, (3) maintaining merit…”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 76-1(2) — 3 cases

In re the Grievance Arbitration Between State of Hawaii Org. of Police Officers & Cnty. of Kaua'i, 338 P.3d 1170 (Haw. App. 2014). “” HRS § 76-1 (2012), entitled “Purposes; merit principle,” provides: It is the purpose of this chapter to require each jurisdiction to establish and maintain a separately administered civil service system based on the merit principle.”

In re Kuamoo., 421 P.3d 1262 (Haw. 2018). “shall be governed by the merit principle"); HRS § 76-1. As explained below, we hold the department's unwritten policy violates the merit principle.”

In re Kuamoo, 382 P.3d 306 (Haw. App. 2016). “]” Specifically, Appellants contend that PSD violated applicable laws because (1) PSD did not disclose its suspension policy to the Union: (2) PSD’s suspension policy violates the “merit principle,” as articulated in HRS § 76-1 (2012 Repl.): and (3) PSD was required to engage…”

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 76-1(3) — 1 case

Arbles v. Merit Appeals Bd.., 515 P.3d 217 (Haw. App. 2022). “In addition, the language of the applicable collective bargaining agreement and the merit principle, HRS §76-1, must also be taken into account.”

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.