§89-1 Statement of findings and policy.
(a) The legislature finds that joint decision-making is the modern way of
administering government. Where public employees have been granted the right
to share in the decision-making process affecting wages and working conditions,
they have become more responsive and better able to exchange ideas and
information on operations with their administrators. Accordingly, government
is made more effective. The legislature further finds that the enactment of
positive legislation establishing guidelines for public employment relations is
the best way to harness and direct the energies of public employees eager to
have a voice in determining their conditions of work; to provide a rational
method for dealing with disputes and work stoppages; and to maintain a favorable
political and social environment.
(b) The legislature declares that it is the
public policy of the State to promote harmonious and cooperative relations
between government and its employees and to protect the public by assuring
effective and orderly operations of government. These policies are best
effectuated by:
(1) Recognizing the right of public employees to
organize for the purpose of collective bargaining;
(2) Requiring 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,
maintaining the merit principle pursuant to section 76-1; and
(3) Creating a labor relations board to administer
the provisions of chapters 89 and 377. [L 1970, c 171, pt of §2; am L 1985, c
251, §2; am L 2000, c 253, §92]
Case Notes
The broad policy statements within this section do not impose
binding duties or obligations upon any parties but, rather, provide a useful
guide for determining legislative intent and purpose; these statements,
therefore, do not implicate the prohibited practice provision of refusing or
failing to comply with any provision of chapter 89, as set forth in
§89-13(a)(7); thus, employee's claim that employer violated this section
properly dismissed. 97 H. 528, 40 P.3d 930.
Order by Hawaii public employment relations board not in
concert with policy and goals of collective bargaining, and constituted abuse
of discretion. 5 H. App. 533, 704 P.2d 917.
Cited: 134 H.
489, 345 P.3d 155 (2015).
Discussed:
133 H. 188, 325 P.3d 600 (2014).
Notes of Decisions
Poe v. Hawai'i Labor Relations Bd., 40 P.3d 930 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 19× “The HLRB thus correctly rejected Poe’s claim that the Employer had (1) committed prohibited practice violations under HRS § 89-13(a)(7) and (8) (1993) and (2) contravened the statement of policy of HRS chapter 89 as set forth in HRS § 89-1 (1993). Therefore, we affirm the…”
Hawaii Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME Local 152 v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010).
· cites it 2× “§ 89—5(i)(4); see also HRS § 89-1(b)(3). As such, a constitutional analysis is unnecessary for the HLRB to adjudicate the statutory issues that are presented in HGEA’s first amended complaint.”
State v. Nakanelua, 345 P.3d 155 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Although UPW argues the circuit court had jurisdiction under chapter 658A because arbitration was involved, it is clear from the statutory scheme of chapter 89 that the legislature’s mandate to the HLRB “to administer the provisions of chapters 89,” HRS § 89-1, also included…”
Aio v. Hamada, 664 P.2d 727 (Haw. 1983).
· cites it 4× “HPERB is empowered pursuant to HRS § 89-1 to administer HRS Chapter 89, Collective Bargaining in Public Employment, with specific authority to "[c]onduct proceedings on complaints of prohibited practices .”
United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 646 v. Yogi, 62 P.3d 189 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 2× “The “legislatively declared policy” outlined in HRS § 89-1 (1993), the statement of findings and policy regarding collective bargaining in public employment, includes the legislature’s judgment that “government is made more effective” if “public employees have been granted the…”
Ariyoshi v. Hawaii Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 704 P.2d 917 (Haw. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Instead HPERB’s re-ratification order created a situation which was in fact disruptive of public employer-employee relations under the contract and was not in concert with the policy and goals of collective bargaining in public employment as proclaimed in HRS § 89-1 (1976). 12…”
Gov't Employees Ass'n v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010).
· cites it 4× “]"); see also HRS § 89-1(b)(3) (Supp.2005) ("The legislature declares that it is the public policy of the State to promote harmonious and cooperative relations between government and its employees and to protect the public by assuring effective and orderly operations of…”
United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO v. Yogi, 62 P.3d 189 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 2× “The "legislatively declared policy" outlined in HRS § 89-1 (1993), the statement of findings and policy regarding collective bargaining in public employment, includes the legislature's judgment that "government is made more effective" if "public employees have been granted the…”
Lee v. United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, 260 P.3d 1135 (Haw. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “It also provided that the HLRB shall administer the provisions of HRS Chapter 377, relating to private sector collective bargaining.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-1(a) — 4 cases
State v. Nakanelua, 345 P.3d 155 (Haw. 2015).
“Although UPW argues the circuit court had jurisdiction under chapter 658A because arbitration was involved, it is clear from the statutory scheme of chapter 89 that the legislature’s mandate to the HLRB “to administer the provisions of chapters 89,” HRS § 89-1, also included…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-1(b) — 3 cases
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-1(b)(3) — 4 cases
Gov't Employees Ass'n v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010).
“]"); see also HRS § 89-1(b)(3) (Supp.2005) ("The legislature declares that it is the public policy of the State to promote harmonious and cooperative relations between government and its employees and to protect the public by assuring effective and orderly operations of…”
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.