§89-8 Recognition and representation;
employee participation. (a) The employee organization that has been
certified by the board as representing the majority of employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of all
employees in the unit. As exclusive representative, it shall have the right to
act for and negotiate agreements covering all employees in the unit and shall
be responsible for representing the interests of the employees without
discrimination and without regard to employee organization membership; provided
that the exclusive representative shall not be required to provide grievance
representation to employees who do not pay dues or dues equivalents and who
decline to pay reasonable costs of that representation. Any other provision
herein to the contrary notwithstanding, whenever two or more employee
organizations that have been duly certified by the board as the exclusive
representatives of employees in bargaining units merge, combine, amalgamate, or
enter into an agreement for common administration or operation of their affairs,
all rights and duties of the employee organizations as exclusive
representatives of employees in the units shall inure to and shall be
discharged by the organization resulting from the merger, combination,
amalgamation, or agreement, either alone or with the employee organizations.
Election by the employees in the unit involved and certification by the board
of the resulting employee organization shall not be required.
(b) An individual employee may present a
grievance at any time to the employee's employer and have the grievance heard
without intervention of an employee organization; provided that the exclusive
representative is afforded the opportunity to be present at such conferences
and that any adjustment made shall not be inconsistent with the terms of an
agreement then in effect between the employer and the exclusive representative.
(c) Employee participation in the collective
bargaining process conducted by the exclusive representative of the appropriate
bargaining unit shall be permitted during regular working hours without loss of
regular salary or wages. The number of participants from each bargaining unit
with over 2,500 members shall be limited to one member for each five hundred
members of the bargaining unit. For bargaining units with less than 2,500
members, there shall be at least five participants, one of whom shall reside in
each county; provided that there need not be a participant residing in each
county for the bargaining unit established by section 89-6(a)(8). The
bargaining unit shall select the participants from representative departments,
divisions or sections to minimize interference with the normal operations and
service of the departments, divisions or sections. [L 1970, c 171, pt of §2; am
L 1971, c 212, §2; am L 1977, c 191, §3; gen ch 1985; am L 2023, c 150, §1]
Case Notes
Where employee presented grievance to employer, was heard
with respect thereto, and was notified that the remedy employee sought as an
individual was denied, employer did not violate subsection (b) and the board
was correct in determining that, on the relevant undisputed facts, the employer
was entitled to summary judgment; thus, there was no §89-13(a)(7) or (8)
prohibited practice violation of the collective bargaining agreement. 97 H.
528, 40 P.3d 930.
The labor relations board had exclusive original
jurisdiction, pursuant to §89-14, 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 subsection (a). 125 H. 317 (App.), 260 P.3d
1135.
Notes of Decisions
Lingle v. Hawai'i Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152, 111 P.3d 587 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 12× “On November 7, 1997, HGEA filed a petition to intervene in the declaratory proceedings, alleging, inter alia, that UPW's attempt to require the DOT to assign BU-02 positions to BU-01 employees infringed upon HGEA's rights as the exclusive bargaining representative of BU-02…”
Poe v. Hawai'i Labor Relations Bd., 40 P.3d 930 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 18× “HRS § 89-8(a) (1993) states inter alia that [t]he employee organization which has been certified by the board as representing the majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit.”
Malahoff v. Saito, 140 P.3d 401 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 10× “[3] The UHPA is the labor organization certified under HRS § 89-8 (1993) to represent the UH faculty.”
Lee v. United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, 260 P.3d 1135 (Haw. App. 2011).
· cites it 12× “As the exclusive bargaining representative for Lee’s bargaining unit, UPW had an obligation pursuant to HRS § 89-8(a) (1993) to represent the interests of all employees in the bargaining unit.”
Poe v. Hawai'i Labor Relations Bd., 94 P.3d 652 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 2× “2d 842 (1967)); see also HRS § 89-8 (1993) (providing that the union, as the exclusive representative “shall have the right to act for and negotiate agreements covering all employees in the unit and shall be responsible for representing the interests of all such employees…”
Gov't Employees Ass'n v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010).
· cites it 2× “3d at 9 , (3) Yogi was inapposite because original jurisdiction and whether a public employer violated HRS § 89-8(a) or (d) were not issues in that case, id.”
Jensen v. Yonamine, 437 F. Supp. 368 (D. Haw. 1977).
· cites it 2× “It is part of the legislature’s recognition “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.”
Shorba v. Shiro Amioka, 501 P.2d 807 (Haw. 1972).
· cites it 6× “As such, under HRS § 89-8 (a), it is authorized to represent all employees in the bargaining unit without regard to their membership in the organization.”
Shopo v. Hlrb, 153 Haw. 431 (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “SHOPO is the HRS § 89-8 certified exclusive collective bargaining representative for police officers who are members of Unit 12.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-8(a) — 8 cases
Lingle v. Hawai'i Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152, 111 P.3d 587 (Haw. 2005).
“On November 7, 1997, HGEA filed a petition to intervene in the declaratory proceedings, alleging, inter alia, that UPW's attempt to require the DOT to assign BU-02 positions to BU-01 employees infringed upon HGEA's rights as the exclusive bargaining representative of BU-02…”
Lee v. United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, 260 P.3d 1135 (Haw. App. 2011).
“As the exclusive bargaining representative for Lee’s bargaining unit, UPW had an obligation pursuant to HRS § 89-8(a) (1993) to represent the interests of all employees in the bargaining unit.”
Poe v. Hawai'i Labor Relations Bd., 40 P.3d 930 (Haw. 2002).
“HRS § 89-8(a) (1993) states inter alia that [t]he employee organization which has been certified by the board as representing the majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit.”
Gov't Employees Ass'n v. Lingle, 239 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2010).
“3d at 9 , (3) Yogi was inapposite because original jurisdiction and whether a public employer violated HRS § 89-8(a) or (d) were not issues in that case, id.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 89-8(b) — 1 case
Poe v. Hawai'i Labor Relations Bd., 40 P.3d 930 (Haw. 2002).
“HRS § 89-8(a) (1993) states inter alia that [t]he employee organization which has been certified by the board as representing the majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit.”
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.