Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 89
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-14 (2026)

  Prevention of prohibited practices

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §89-14  Prevention of prohibited practices.  Any controversy concerning prohibited practices may be submitted to the board in the same manner and with the same effect as provided in section 377-9; provided that the board shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over such a controversy except that nothing herein shall preclude (1) the institution of appropriate proceedings in circuit court pursuant to section [89-12(c)] or (2) the judicial review of decisions or orders of the board in prohibited practice controversies in accordance with section 377-9 and chapter 91.  All references in section 377-9 to "labor organization" shall include employee organization. [L 1970, c 171, pt of §2; am L 1982, c 27, §1; am L 1985, c 251, §6]

 

Case Notes

 

  The Hawaii labor relations board (HLRB) had exclusive original jurisdiction over the statutory issues raised in public employees' union's complaint, and the circuit court erred in addressing the constitutional issues without first giving the HLRB the opportunity to address the issues arising under this chapter.  124 H. 197, 239 P.3d 1.

  Circuit court erred by failing to allow the Hawaii labor relations board to decide the issues relating to chapter 89 before deciding the constitutional issues in the case where the plain language of this section supported the conclusion that the board had exclusive original jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and that the case was a "controversy concerning prohibited practices" that must first be submitted to the board.  126 H. 318, 271 P.3d 613.

  Where union's retaliation claims provided a basis for both a prohibited practice claim and claims under the Hawaii Whistleblowers' Protection Act and article I, section 4 of the Hawaii constitution, the intermediate court of appeals properly applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to the retaliation claims.  133 H. 188, 325 P.3d 600 (2014).

  Where arbitration between the State and union representing state employees was statutorily mandated arbitration pursuant to §89-11(e), and not a voluntary agreement to arbitrate, the Hawaii labor relations board had original jurisdiction over the parties' dispute pursuant to this section; circuit court did not have jurisdiction pursuant to chapter 658A because that chapter was inapplicable.  134 H. 489, 345 P.3d 155 (2015).

  An action concerning prohibited practices may be brought before the board or in a court of competent jurisdiction.  2 H. App. 50, 625 P.2d 1046.

  Granting the labor relations board exclusive original jurisdiction over plaintiff's action under this section did not violate plaintiff's equal protection right; as plaintiff's fundamental right was not implicated, and plaintiff did not argue that public employees were a suspect class, the board's exclusive original jurisdiction over public sector prohibited practice controversies was rationally related to the public policy of chapter 89.  125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.

  Granting the labor relations board exclusive original jurisdiction over plaintiff's action under this section did not violate plaintiff's substantive due process rights; as plaintiff's fundamental right was not implicated, granting the board exclusive original jurisdiction over public sector prohibited practice controversies was rationally related to the public policy of chapter 89 - that it would be more effective in promoting harmonious governmental employer-employee relations and assuring the effective operation of government for these controversies to be first decided by the board rather than the courts.  125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.

  The labor relations board had exclusive original jurisdiction, pursuant to this section, over plaintiff's hybrid-action complaint involving prohibited practices where plaintiff's complaint alleged that the State had breached the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and that the United Public Workers, as plaintiff's exclusive representative under the CBA, had breached its duty of fair representation in violation of §89-8(a).  125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.

  This section, by vesting the labor relations board with exclusive original jurisdiction over plaintiff's action, did not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as the administrative dispute resolution process set forth in chapter 89 did not preclude plaintiff from seeking redress from the courts; plaintiff could appeal an unfavorable decision issued by the board to the circuit court and was thus not deprived of reasonable access to the courts.  125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.

  This section did not violate plaintiff's procedural due process rights where:  (1) chapter 89 afforded plaintiff the opportunity to present plaintiff's action to the labor relations board in an administrative hearing; (2) the decision of the board required a majority vote of its three members, and one member each must be representative of management, labor, and the public; and (3) any person aggrieved by a decision of the board could appeal that decision to the circuit court.  125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d 1135.

  The Hawaii labor relations board had jurisdiction to declare whether the factual circumstances presented to it in the union's amended petition would constitute a prohibited practice where the amended petition sought a declaratory ruling that the employers' service of subpoenas duces tecum interfered with, restrained, and otherwise violated the employees' rights under §89-3, and therefore constituted prohibited practices pursuant to §89-13(a)(1).  131 H. 142 (App.), 315 P.3d 768 (2013).

  Where the government-employee union's (union) claim that the government employers violated the terms of the arbitration award by failing to meet and confer as required by the arbitration award involved a controversy concerning prohibited practices, the Hawaii labor relations board had exclusive original jurisdiction over the claims raised in the union's motion for civil contempt, and the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to decide the motion for civil contempt.  132 H. 492 (App.), 323 P.3d 136 (2014).

  Where the parties' claims regarding their dispute over the selection of a neutral arbitrator, as alleged in their prohibited practice complaints, clearly involved a controversy concerning prohibited practices, the Hawaii labor relations board had exclusive original jurisdiction to determine the controversy concerning the selection of the neutral arbitrator.  132 H. 492 (App.), 323 P.3d 136 (2014).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: Hawaii Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME Local 152 v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hawaii Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME Local 152 v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010). · cites it 78× “HGEA asserts that the circuit court properly exercised jurisdiction in this case because HLRB’s jurisdiction is limited to the extent that the courts, and not the HLRB, “can (1) decide constitutional questions and (2) grant injunctive relief.”
Gov't Employees Ass'n v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010). · cites it 78× “HGEA asserts that the circuit court properly exercised jurisdiction in this case because HLRB's jurisdiction is limited to the extent that the courts, and not the HLRB, "can (1) decide constitutional questions and (2) grant injunctive relief.”
Lee v. United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, 260 P.3d 1135 (Haw. App. 2011). · cites it 76× “The Circuit Court granted UPW’s and the State’s respective motions to dismiss, and it entered a Judgment against Lee and in favor of UPW and the State.”
United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 636, AFL-CIO v. Abercrombie., 325 P.3d 600 (Haw. 2014). · cites it 89× “It concluded that HRS § 89-14 provided HLRB with exclusive original jurisdiction over controversies implicating prohibited practices, and therefore, “it would be wholly inconsistent with 20 In HGEA, two unions sought relief under both statutory and constitutional provisions to…”
State v. Nakanelua, 345 P.3d 155 (Haw. 2015). · cites it 28× “In one action, the UPW filed a motion to compel arbitration; the circuit court denied the motion after concluding that the HLRB had exclusive original jurisdiction over the matter because it involved prohibited practices under HRS § 89-14. 1 The other two actions challenged…”
Winslow v. State, 625 P.2d 1046 (Haw. App. 1981). · cites it 5× “HRS § 89-14 Prevention of prohibited practices.”
Aio v. Hamada, 664 P.2d 727 (Haw. 1983). · cites it 4× “See HRS § 89-14. HRS § 377-9( l ) precludes the consideration of prohibited practices unless they have occurred within ninety days of the filing of the complaint.”
In re United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, 315 P.3d 768 (Haw. App. 2013). · cites it 9× “More specifically, HRS § 89-14 (2012) provides: § 89-14 Prevention of prohibited practices.”
In re Hawai'i Gov't Employees Ass'n, Local 152, 170 P.3d 324 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 6× “]” 27 HRS § 89-14. Thus, the Board has express power over “[a]ny controversy concerning prohibited practices[,]” id.”
Santos v. State, Dept. of Transp. Kauai Div., 646 P.2d 962 (Haw. 1982). · cites it 2× “State, supra, it was held that under HRS § 89-14 prohibited practices whether committed by the employer, employee, or employee organization can be taken before HPERB or in a court of competent jurisdiction.”
State v. Nakanelua, 323 P.3d 136 (Haw. App. 2014). · cites it 18× “14 The Circuit Court ruled that it “lack[ed] subject matter jurisdiction over the issues presented regarding prohibited practices” and that the HLRB had jurisdiction over these issues under HRS § 89-14. The Circuit Court alternatively ruled that if it had jurisdiction, then: (1)…”
Lepere v. United Pub. Workers, Local 646, 887 P.2d 1029 (Haw. 1995). “]” Although Hawaii Revised Statutes § 89-14 clearly precluded Lepere from bringing his prohibited practices complaint in the circuit court, Lepere adamantly pursued his claim.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-14(2) — 2 cases
Hawaii Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME Local 152 v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010). “HGEA asserts that the circuit court properly exercised jurisdiction in this case because HLRB’s jurisdiction is limited to the extent that the courts, and not the HLRB, “can (1) decide constitutional questions and (2) grant injunctive relief.”
Gov't Employees Ass'n v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010). “HGEA asserts that the circuit court properly exercised jurisdiction in this case because HLRB's jurisdiction is limited to the extent that the courts, and not the HLRB, "can (1) decide constitutional questions and (2) grant injunctive relief.”
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.