Haw. State Teachers Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ.

Citation: 434 P.3d 1252Docket: NO. CAAP-15-0000656

Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals; January 29, 2019; Hawaii; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Hawai'i State Teachers Association (HSTA) appeals the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's Final Judgment and its Order partially reversing and affirming Hawai'i Labor Relations Board (HLRB) Order No. 3015, both dated August 25, 2015. HSTA presents four points of error, asserting that the Circuit Court incorrectly upheld HLRB's summary judgment favoring the Board of Education and Susan Kitsu regarding claims of statutory information disclosure violations under HRS 89-13(a)(5) and willful contract violations under HRS 89-13(a)(8). HSTA argues that the deferral doctrine wrongly influenced the assessment of confidential information, and that HLRB's denial of HSTA's summary judgment requests regarding HRS violations and claims of interference with employee rights was erroneous. The court acknowledges that the duty to bargain in good faith, as established under HRS 89-13(a)(5), includes the obligation to provide relevant information necessary for the union's representation of employees. This duty aligns with federal labor law principles, which require unions to initially demonstrate the relevance of requested information before the employer is obligated to provide it. The court notes that the specifics of the duty to disclose information depend on the unique circumstances of each case.

The United States Supreme Court has established a 'discovery-type' standard for determining the relevance of information that employers must disclose, requiring only a likelihood that the information is relevant. Certain information, particularly wage-related data for employees in a bargaining unit, is deemed 'presumptively relevant,' negating the need for the union to justify specific requests unless the employer effectively rebuts the presumption. The NLRB has extended this standard to include names and contact information of union members. Employers must provide information enabling unions to fulfill their duties in collective bargaining, not limited to issues currently in dispute. For instance, in a cited case, the union needed individual wage information to represent employees effectively, which the employer was obligated to provide regardless of pending wage disputes. The obligation to furnish information is confined to mandatory subjects of bargaining, such as wages and working conditions. The NLRB has clarified that requests related to nonmandatory subjects do not require information disclosure. In Hawai'i, similar mandatory topics include wages and employment conditions. HSTA contends that the HLRB incorrectly determined that sufficient information was provided to enable it to perform its representation duties. However, HSTA fails to substantiate its claims regarding the relevance of its requests to wages or employment terms, relying instead on vague assertions of duty without clear ties to statutory responsibilities. Additionally, HSTA does not clarify which specific employment terms were in question regarding two teachers it references.

HSTA's argument that it is entitled to information under the duty to bargain in good faith based on a union's role in investigatory interviews is rejected. Federal law affirms that Teachers 1 and 2 had the right to representation by an HSTA official during a meeting with the OCRC, particularly when there is a reasonable belief that disciplinary action may result. This right is rooted in the broader right to organize and not in the duty to bargain. While an employer can investigate misconduct without union interference and is entitled to hear the employee's account, the union representative may provide assistance to employees who may struggle to articulate their positions.

HSTA's reliance on Weingarten is deemed irrelevant to defining the union's role during investigations or its duty to represent fairly. HSTA has not presented evidence that its role includes a statutory duty to gather specific information during disciplinary investigations. The HLRB's conclusion that HSTA possessed sufficient information to fulfill its representation duties is upheld, and HSTA's claims that its information requests were 'presumptively relevant' are dismissed. The comparison HSTA draws between its situation and precedent cases such as Whitin and Arnold is also rejected, as the circumstances differ significantly, with Whitin concerning wage-related information and Arnold regarding attorney-client relationships.

HSTA argues that the duty to bargain in good faith necessitates providing information relevant to the collective-bargaining process, citing Acme, but fails to clarify how its requests relate to this process. The organization references Lee v. UPW, emphasizing the state's public policy to foster cooperative relations between government and employees, yet does not connect this to its argument. Consequently, it cannot establish that HLRB erred in assessing the nature and timing of OCRC's investigation. HSTA claims that the refusal to provide documents constitutes a willful violation of Article IV Section A of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which obligates the Employer to furnish information to assist the Association in representing teachers and processing grievances. However, HSTA does not demonstrate how its requests are pertinent to these processes, particularly since grievances are defined as claims against non-compliance with the CBA. 

Furthermore, HSTA contends that HLRB incorrectly granted summary judgment concerning allegations of interference with employee rights and non-compliance with statutory and contractual obligations, claiming that material facts were in dispute. HSTA argues that uncertainties regarding the school code and the transition to standard practices under Article XXI render these claims not ripe for summary judgment. However, HSTA fails to specify what material facts remain disputed or their relevance to its argument under HRS 89-13(a). Despite submitting extensive evidence and documentation, HSTA does not indicate any evidence it was unable to present or how its substantial rights were prejudiced, as outlined in HRS 91-14(g), which allows for reversal or modification if substantial rights are affected by agency errors.

HSTA contends that provisions in HAR Chapter 41 are considered 'Standard Practices' under Article XXI, Section A of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which states that teachers retain all rights related to their employment conditions as per those practices at the time the agreement was executed. However, Section B of the same article clarifies that the Employer retains the authority to modify these Standard Practices, provided that HSTA is consulted about any changes. The Hawaii Labor Relations Board (HLRB) determined that even if HAR Chapter 41 is incorporated into the agreement, the Employer has the contractual right to amend those practices after consultation with HSTA. HSTA did not claim that the Respondents failed to consult them regarding these practices, leading to the affirmation of the Circuit Court's August 25, 2015 Judgment by Judge Rhonda A. Nishimura.

The document notes that the current Director of the Office of Civil Rights Compliance Branch should replace the previous director, Susan Kitsu, as per Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure. It references HRS 89-9, which mandates that the employer and exclusive representative negotiate in good faith regarding terms and conditions of employment, while clarifying that neither party is compelled to agree to proposals. The case at hand involves unrelated allegations of sexual harassment against two teachers. Additionally, HRS 89-3 grants employees the right to self-organize for collective bargaining without interference, while HRS 89-13(a)(8) prohibits employers from willfully violating the CBA's terms.

Article V of the CBA outlines the grievance procedure, defining grievances as claims of violations or misapplications of the agreement, which can only be initiated by teachers or their certified representatives. It also specifies the Employer's right to take disciplinary actions for proper cause, which are subject to the grievance process, including expedited procedures for suspensions or terminations. Arbitration may occur through conventional or expedited means, allowing either party to file closing briefs.