§89-4 Payroll deductions. (a) Upon
receiving from an exclusive representative a written statement specifying the
amount of regular dues required of its members in the appropriate bargaining
unit, the employer shall deduct this amount from the payroll of every member
employee in the appropriate bargaining unit and remit the amount to the
exclusive representative. Additionally, the employer shall deduct an amount
equivalent to the regular dues from the payroll of every nonmember employee in
the appropriate bargaining unit, and shall remit the amount to the exclusive
representative; provided that the deduction from the payroll of every nonmember
employee shall be made only for an exclusive representative that provides for a
procedure for determining the amount of a refund to any employee who demands
the return of any part of the deduction that represents the employee's pro rata
share of expenditures made by the exclusive representative for activities of a
political and ideological nature unrelated to terms and conditions of employment.
If a nonmember employee objects to the amount to be refunded, the nonmember
employee may petition the board for review thereof within fifteen days after
notice of the refund has been received. If an employee organization is no
longer the exclusive representative of the appropriate bargaining unit, the
deduction from the payroll of members and nonmembers shall terminate.
(b) The employer shall, upon written
authorization by an employee, executed at any time after the employee's joining
an employee organization, deduct from the payroll of the employee the amount of
membership dues, initiation fees, group insurance premiums, and other
association benefits and shall remit the amount to the employee organization
designated by the employee.
(c) The employer shall continue all payroll
assignments authorized by an employee prior to July 1, 1970, and all
assignments authorized under subsection (b) until the employee provides written
notification within thirty days before the anniversary date of the employee's
execution of the written authorization under subsection (b), to the employee's
exclusive representative to discontinue the employee's assignments. The
employee's exclusive representative shall provide a copy of the employee's
written notification to the employer within ten business days of receipt from
the employee.
(d) If any provision of this section, or
application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the
remainder of the section, or the application of the provision to other persons
or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. [L 1970, c 171, pt of §2; am L
1981, c 180, §1; am L 1982, c 100, §1; gen ch 1985; am L 2018, c 7, §1]
Revision Note
"July 1, 1970" substituted for "the effective
date of this chapter".
Case Notes
Section held to be constitutional on its face since
regulation of labor relations of state and local governments has been left to
the states. 437 F. Supp. 368.
In the certification process for collective bargaining
service fees, union not acting under color of state law. 472 F. Supp. 1123.
Where plaintiff maintained that defendant union provided
inadequate information to nonmembers prior to making union payroll deductions
pursuant to this section in violation of Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson,
defendants were preliminarily enjoined from taking any action to demand and/or
collect from plaintiff and class members, by any means, agency fees and from
taking any other action to enforce subsection (a), until a mechanism for
withdrawing agency fees that was in compliance with Hudson was devised by the
parties and approved by the court. 269 F. Supp. 2d 1252.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases, 1977–2020 · leading case:
Aio v. Hamada, 664 P.2d 727 (Haw. 1983).
Aio v. Hamada, 664 P.2d 727 (Haw. 1983).
· cites it 14× “payment of service fees to an exclusive representative [of an appropriate bargaining unit] as provided in section 89-4." [2] The thirteen teachers who have appealed belong to Bargaining Unit 5, which has been designated an appropriate unit for collective bargaining pursuant to…”
Jensen v. Yonamine, 437 F. Supp. 368 (D. Haw. 1977).
· cites it 37× “On or about October 27, 1971, the Hawaii Public Employment Relations Board (HPERB) 1 certified a $77 service fee as authorized by HRS § 89-4 (Supp.1975). 2 Since that date a service fee, in varying amounts, has been certified and charged pursuant to HRS § 89-4(a).”
Jordan v. Hamada, 643 P.2d 73 (Haw. 1982).
· cites it 6× “Jordan to challenge the certification of service fees charged by appellee Hawaii Government Employees’ Association, Local 152, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (“HGEA”), pursuant to HRS § 89-4 as the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit to which appellant Jordan, a former University…”
Jordan v. Hamada, 616 P.2d 1368 (Haw. 1980).
· cites it 4× “As a certified “exclusive representative,’’HGEA is allowed by HRS § 89-4 1 *446 to collect a “service fee” 2 deemed reasonable by the Hawaii Public Employment Relations Board (hereafter HPERB) from each employee in a bargaining unit it is certified to represent.”
Jordan v. Hamada, 643 P.2d 70 (Haw. 1982).
· cites it 2× “■ Appellee Hawaii Government Employees’Association, Local 152, AFSCMÉ, AFL-CIO (“HGEA”), filed a petition for certification of the service fee to be imposed on members of bargaining units it represented pursuant to HRS § 89-4 with the appellee Hawaii Public Employment Relations…”
United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 636, AFL-CIO v. Abercrombie., 325 P.3d 600 (Haw. 2014).
· cites it 2× “An employee shall have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities, except for having a payroll deduction equivalent to regular dues remitted to an exclusive representative as provided in section 89-4. 14 HRS § 89-9(a) (Supp. 2008) states: The employer and the…”
In re Hawai'i Gov't Employees Ass'n, Local 152, 170 P.3d 324 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 2× “An employee shall have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities, except for having a payroll deduction equivalent to regular dues remitted to an exclusive representative as provided in section 89-4. (Emphasis added.) HRS § 89—13(a) provides in pertinent part as…”
Swanson v. Univ. of Hawaii Prof'l Assembly, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (D. Haw. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Since at least August 31, 2000, pursuant to Haw.Rev.Stat. § 89-4, Defendant Evans has been deducting agency fees equal to full union dues on behalf of UHPA from the wages of Plaintiff and other nonunion employees of Collective Bargaining Unit 7.”
Swanson v. Univ. of Hawaii Prof'l Assembly, 212 F.R.D. 574 (D. Haw. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Since at least August 31, 2000, pursuant to Haw.Rev.Stat. § 89-4, Defendant Evans has been deducting agency fees equal to full union dues on behalf of UHPA from the wages of Plaintiff and other nonunion employees of Collective Bargaining Unit 7.”
Grossman v. Hawaii Gov't Employees Ass'n/AFSCME Local 152 (D. Haw. 2020).
· cites it 12× “at ¶ 12 ; see also Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-4 (b). When the Supreme Court decided Janus on June 27, 2018, “DAGS immediately stopped deducting and HGEA stopped receiving fair-share fees from nonmembers.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-4(a) — 4 cases
Aio v. Hamada, 664 P.2d 727 (Haw. 1983).
“payment of service fees to an exclusive representative [of an appropriate bargaining unit] as provided in section 89-4." [2] The thirteen teachers who have appealed belong to Bargaining Unit 5, which has been designated an appropriate unit for collective bargaining pursuant to…”
Jensen v. Yonamine, 437 F. Supp. 368 (D. Haw. 1977).
“On or about October 27, 1971, the Hawaii Public Employment Relations Board (HPERB) 1 certified a $77 service fee as authorized by HRS § 89-4 (Supp.1975). 2 Since that date a service fee, in varying amounts, has been certified and charged pursuant to HRS § 89-4(a).”
Swanson v. Univ. of Hawaii Prof'l Assembly, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (D. Haw. 2003).
“Since at least August 31, 2000, pursuant to Haw.Rev.Stat. § 89-4, Defendant Evans has been deducting agency fees equal to full union dues on behalf of UHPA from the wages of Plaintiff and other nonunion employees of Collective Bargaining Unit 7.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-4(b) — 1 case
Jensen v. Yonamine, 437 F. Supp. 368 (D. Haw. 1977).
“On or about October 27, 1971, the Hawaii Public Employment Relations Board (HPERB) 1 certified a $77 service fee as authorized by HRS § 89-4 (Supp.1975). 2 Since that date a service fee, in varying amounts, has been certified and charged pursuant to HRS § 89-4(a).”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-4(c) — 1 case
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.