§89-10 Written agreements; enforceability;
cost items. (a) Any collective bargaining agreement reached between the
employer and the exclusive representative shall be subject to ratification by
the employees concerned, except for an agreement reached pursuant to an
arbitration decision. Ratification is not required for other agreements
effective during the term of the collective bargaining agreement, whether a
supplemental agreement, an agreement on reopened items, or a memorandum of
agreement, and any agreement to extend the term of the collective bargaining agreement.
The agreement shall be reduced to writing and executed by both parties. Except
for cost items and any non-cost items that are tied to or bargained against
cost items, all provisions in the agreement that are in conformance with this
chapter, including a grievance procedure and an impasse procedure culminating
in an arbitration decision, shall be valid and enforceable and shall be
effective as specified in the agreement, regardless of the requirements to
submit cost items under this section and section 89-11.
(b) All cost items shall be subject to
appropriations by the appropriate legislative bodies. The employer shall
submit within ten days of the date on which the agreement is ratified by the
employees concerned all cost items contained therein to the appropriate
legislative bodies, except that if any cost items require appropriation by the
state legislature and it is not in session at the time, the cost items shall be
submitted for inclusion in the governor's next operating budget within ten days
after the date on which the agreement is ratified. The state legislature or
the legislative bodies of the counties acting in concert, as the case may be,
may approve or reject the cost items submitted to them, as a whole. If the
state legislature or the legislative body of any county rejects any of the cost
items submitted to them, all cost items submitted shall be returned to the
parties for further bargaining.
(c) Because effective and orderly operations
of government are essential to the public, it is declared to be in the public
interest that in the course of collective bargaining, the public employer and
the exclusive representative for each bargaining unit shall by mutual agreement
include provisions in the collective bargaining agreement for that bargaining
unit for an expiration date which will be on June 30th of an odd-numbered year.
The parties may include provisions for
reopening during the term of a collective bargaining agreement; provided that
cost items as defined in section 89-2 shall be subject to the requirements of
this section.
(d) Whenever there is a conflict between the
collective bargaining agreement and any of the rules adopted by the employer,
including civil service or other personnel policies, standards, and procedures,
the terms of the agreement shall prevail; provided that the terms are not
inconsistent with section 89-9(d).
Whenever there are provisions in a collective
bargaining agreement concerning a matter under chapter 76 or 78 that is
negotiable under chapter 89, the terms of the agreement shall prevail; provided
that the terms are not inconsistent with section 89-9(d). [L 1970, c 171, pt of
§2; am L 1975, c 162, §2; am L 1988, c 399, §1; am L 2000, c 253, §99; am L
2002, c 195, §1]
Attorney General Opinions
Cost items that require new or additional appropriation and
positions that exceed the maximum position count must be submitted to
Legislature. Att. Gen. Op. 72-10.
Legislature may reject cost items by failure to appropriate
funds or by concurrent resolution or other means indicating views of both
houses. Att. Gen. Op. 72-10.
Legislature has power to pass law increasing salaries of one
unit of state employees, but it would be inconsistent with the collective
bargaining law to do so. Att. Gen. Op. 74-6.
Case Notes
In interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement,
extrinsic evidence of past practices and past interpretations is proper. 60 H.
513, 591 P.2d 621.
Notes of Decisions
Hoopai v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 103 P.3d 365 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 25× “In that regard, HRS § 89-10(a) provides in part that collective bargaining agreements "may contain a grievance procedure and an impasse procedure culminating in final and binding arbitration[.”
Awakuni v. Awana, 165 P.3d 1027 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 8× “2003) [16] and HRS § 89-10(b) (Supp. 2003) [17] ). Defendants, however, also do not cite to any statutes or caselaw supporting their contention that these characteristics, if true, evidence a "state board" within the meaning of HRS § 26-35.”
United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 646 v. Yogi, 62 P.3d 189 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 7× “, HRS § 89-6 (excluding an entire class of "public employees” from bargaining collectively); HRS § 89-9 (excluding entire subjects from collective bargaining process); HRS § 89-10 (restricting the lifetime of collective bargaining agreements and when negotiations, including cost…”
Malahoff v. Saito, 140 P.3d 401 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 4× “See [HRS] § 89-6 (1993) (establishing bargaining units); HRS § 89-9(d) (1993) (specifying matters that are not subject to collective bargaining); HRS § 89-10(c) (1993) (determining the expiration date for collective bargaining agreements and proscribing the reopening of cost…”
Hawaii Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME Local 152 v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010).
“hours, the amounts of contributions by the State and respective counties to the Hawaii employer-union health benefits trust fund or a voluntary employees' beneficiary association trust to the extent allowed in subsection (e), and other terms and conditions of employment that are…”
Fasi v. State of Hawaii Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 591 P.2d 113 (Haw. 1979).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 89-10. At the time of entry of the decisions and orders of the Board from which the appeals were taken to the circuit court in this case, HRS § 89-9(d) read as follows: (d) Excluded from the subjects of negotiations are matters of classification and reclassification,…”
Poe v. Hawai'i Labor Relations Bd., State, 49 P.3d 382 (Haw. 2002).
“In 1997, he petitioned the Hawai'i Labor Relations Board (HLRB) for a declaratory ruling that Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 89-10(a) (1993) (requiring employee ratification of any collective bargaining agreement) applied to a 1997 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between public…”
United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 636, AFL-CIO v. Abercrombie., 325 P.3d 600 (Haw. 2014).
· cites it 2× “, hours, the amounts of contributions by the State and respective counties to the Hawaii employer-union health benefits trust fund or voluntary employees’ beneficiary association trust to the extent allowed in subsection (e), and other terms and conditions of employment that are…”
Gov't Employees Ass'n v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010).
“hours, the amounts of contributions by the State and respective counties to the Hawaii employer-union health benefits trust fund or a voluntary employees' beneficiary association trust to the extent allowed in subsection (e), and other terms and conditions of employment that are…”
In re United Pub. Workers v. Kishimoto (Haw. 2020).
“and other terms and conditions of employment which are subject to collective bargaining and which are to be embodied in a written agreement as specified in section 89-10, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or make a concession[.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-10(a) — 2 cases
Hoopai v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 103 P.3d 365 (Haw. 2004).
“In that regard, HRS § 89-10(a) provides in part that collective bargaining agreements "may contain a grievance procedure and an impasse procedure culminating in final and binding arbitration[.”
Poe v. Hawai'i Labor Relations Bd., State, 49 P.3d 382 (Haw. 2002).
“In 1997, he petitioned the Hawai'i Labor Relations Board (HLRB) for a declaratory ruling that Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 89-10(a) (1993) (requiring employee ratification of any collective bargaining agreement) applied to a 1997 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between public…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-10(b) — 3 cases
Awakuni v. Awana, 165 P.3d 1027 (Haw. 2007).
“2003) [16] and HRS § 89-10(b) (Supp. 2003) [17] ). Defendants, however, also do not cite to any statutes or caselaw supporting their contention that these characteristics, if true, evidence a "state board" within the meaning of HRS § 26-35.”
United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 646 v. Yogi, 62 P.3d 189 (Haw. 2002).
“, HRS § 89-6 (excluding an entire class of "public employees” from bargaining collectively); HRS § 89-9 (excluding entire subjects from collective bargaining process); HRS § 89-10 (restricting the lifetime of collective bargaining agreements and when negotiations, including cost…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-10(c) — 3 cases
Malahoff v. Saito, 140 P.3d 401 (Haw. 2006).
“See [HRS] § 89-6 (1993) (establishing bargaining units); HRS § 89-9(d) (1993) (specifying matters that are not subject to collective bargaining); HRS § 89-10(c) (1993) (determining the expiration date for collective bargaining agreements and proscribing the reopening of cost…”
United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 646 v. Yogi, 62 P.3d 189 (Haw. 2002).
“, HRS § 89-6 (excluding an entire class of "public employees” from bargaining collectively); HRS § 89-9 (excluding entire subjects from collective bargaining process); HRS § 89-10 (restricting the lifetime of collective bargaining agreements and when negotiations, including cost…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-10(d) — 1 case
Hoopai v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 103 P.3d 365 (Haw. 2004).
“In that regard, HRS § 89-10(a) provides in part that collective bargaining agreements "may contain a grievance procedure and an impasse procedure culminating in final and binding arbitration[.”
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.