§89-19 Chapter takes precedence, when.
This chapter shall take precedence over all conflicting statutes concerning
this subject matter and shall preempt all contrary local ordinances, executive
orders, legislation, or rules adopted by the State, a county, or any department
or agency thereof, including the departments of human resources development or
of personnel services or the civil service commission. [L 1970, c 171, pt of
§2; am L 1994, c 56, §15]
Cross References
Merit appeals board, see §26-5.
Attorney General Opinions
Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over employee complaints
covered by collective bargaining agreements. Att. Gen. Op. 73-6.
Case Notes
Mentioned with respect to applicability of chapter 380. 54
H. 531, 511 P.2d 1080.
Chapter 92F not a "conflicting statute on the same
subject matter" as chapter 89, within the meaning of this section, and
thus is not preempted by chapter 89 or any collective bargaining agreement
negotiated under it. 83 H. 378, 927 P.2d 386.
Although an application of §84-13 was necessary to decide the
union's complaint under §89-13, it could not be said that the question arose
under chapter 84; where union filed the complaint with the board under this
section, the board had "exclusive original jurisdiction" to determine
prohibited practice complaints and the ethics commission would not have had
jurisdiction to make that determination; thus, the board had the power to apply
§84-13 in order to decide whether a prohibited practice violation actually
occurred and it did not exceed its jurisdiction in ruling that a violation did
not occur based on the application of §84-13. 116 H. 73, 170 P.3d 324.
Employee must fully exhaust the remedies covered in
collective bargaining agreement before employee can bring action in circuit
court. 2 H. App. 50, 625 P.2d 1046.
To the extent that there may be a conflict between the
jurisdictional provisions of this chapter and chapter 658A, this chapter takes
precedence over chapter 658A. 132 H. 492 (App.), 323 P.3d 136 (2014).
Notes of Decisions
Hoopai v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 103 P.3d 365 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 14× “First, the court explained that "HRS [c]hapter 92 is not a `conflicting statute on the same subject matter' as HRS [c]hapter 89, within the meaning of HRS § 89-19, and thus is not preempted by HRS [c]hapter 89 or any collective bargaining agreement negotiated thereunder [.”
State v. Nakanelua, 345 P.3d 155 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 14× “HRS § 89-19 (2012) explicitly states that the provisions of HRS Chapter 89 “shall take precedence over all conflicting statutes concerning this subject matter and shall pre-empt all contrary local ordinances, executive orders, legislation, or rules adopted by the State[.”
In re Hawai'i Gov't Employees Ass'n, Local 152, 170 P.3d 324 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 20× “2006), were not violated, (3) the Board did not exceed its jurisdiction by applying the State Ethics Code, HRS § 84-13, in this case, and (4) the Board did not misconstrue the preemption clause of HRS § 89-19 (Supp.2006). I. The initial relevant facts garnered from the Board’s…”
Williams v. Aona, 210 P.3d 501 (Haw. 2009).
· cites it 6× “HRS § 89-19 (1993 & Supp.2008). However, HRS § 89-19 does not apply here because Aona challenges the CBA and not the provisions of HRS chapter 89.”
Hawaii Pub. Emp. Relations Bd. v. Hawaii State Teachers Ass'n, 511 P.2d 1080 (Haw. 1973).
· cites it 6× “However, the question is how does the phrase “in compliance with chapter 380” modify such a clear grant of jurisdiction? We are of the opinion that the phrase “in compliance with chapter 380” can properly be construed only in conjunction with the latter phrase “as may be…”
Cammack v. Waihee, 673 F. Supp. 1524 (D. Haw. 1987).
“§ 89-19 which provides, in pertinent part, that Hawaii statutes pertaining to collective bargaining “shall take precedence over all conflicting statutes concerning this subject matter and shall preempt all contrary .”
State v. Nakanelua, 323 P.3d 136 (Haw. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 89-19 (2012) explicitly states that the provisions of HRS Chapter 89 “shall take precedence over all conflicting statutes concerning this subject matter and shall pre-empt all contrary local ordinances, executive orders, legislation, or rules adopted by the State[.”
State v. Nakaneula. (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 6× “However, 36 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** the ICA decided that it “need not resolve the question of whether HRS Chapter 658A applies to interest arbitrations under HRS Chapter 89” because, under HRS § 89-19 (2012), “the exclusive original…”
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.