Grievance Arbitration Between State Organization of Police Officers v. County of Kauai

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI°I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS oF THE sTATE oF HAwArI ---oOo--- In the Matter of the Grievance Arbitration Between, STATE OF HAWAII ORGANIZATION OF POLICE OFFICERS (SHOPO), exclusive representative for Bargaining Unit l2, Police, On behalf Of SHELLY L. RODRIGUES, JAMES A. RODRIGUEZ, and SHANE Y. SOKEl, Grievants-Appellants, V . COUNTY OF KAUAI, and KAUAI POLICE DEPARTMENT l Employer-Appellee. .; "W NO. 3003O APPEAL FRoM THE c:RcUIT.coURT oF run FIFTH cIRcUIT.ff s (s.P. No. 09-1-0031) 1;§t ~~ (g:j¢-i MarCh l9, 2010 NAKAMURA, C.J., FOLEY and FUJISE, JJ. oRDER DIsMIssINc APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION Per Curiam. In an appeal arising out of an arbitration matter, Grievants-Appellants State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO), exclusive representative for Bargaining Unit l2, Police, on behalf of Shelly L. Rodrigues, James A. Rodrigues, and Shane Y. Sokei, (Appellant SHOPO) have asserted an appeal from the Honorable Kathleen N. A. Watanabe's August 6, 2009 order denying Appellant SHOPO's motion to confirm an arbitration award against Employer-Appellee County of Kauai and Kauai Police Department (Appellee Kauai County). Appellee Kauai County contests our appellate jurisdiction over this matter, FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER because the Honorable Kathleen N. A. Watanabe also entered an August 6, 2009 order that granted in part and denied in part Appellee Kauai County‘s counter-motion to vacate the arbitration award and remanded this matter to the arbitrator with instructions to rehear the issue of what remedy is appropriate. Based on the remand instructions in the August 6, 2009 order granting in part and denying in part Appellee Kauai County’s counter-motion to vacate the arbitration award, Appellee Kauai County asserts that the appealed order, i;§;, the August 6, 2009 order denying Appellant SHOPO's motion to confirm the arbitration award, lacks the necessary finality for the purpose of invoking our appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Hawafi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 653A-28(a) (supp. 2008>. The supreme court has acknowledged the well-settled principle that appellate courts have an independent obligation to insure they have jurisdiction to hear and determine each case. . . . This duty arises from the equally well-settled rule that the legislature may define and limit the right of appeal because the remedy of appeal is not a common law right and it exists only by authority of statutory or constitutional provisions. Hui Kawdo Aina`Hdopulapulapula v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res., ll2 HaWaFi 28, 38-39, l43 P.3d l230, 1240-42 (2006) (CitatiOnS, internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). HRS § 658A- 28(a)(3) authorizes an appeal from an order that either confirms or denies an arbitration award: § 658A-28. Appeals. (a) An appeal may be taken from: (l) An order denying a motion to compel arbitration; (2) An order granting a motion to stay arbitration; (3) An order confirming or denying confirmation of an award; (4) An order modifying or correcting an award; (5) An order vacating an award without directing a rehearing; or FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (6) A final judgment entered pursuant to this chapter. (b) An appeal under this section shall be taken as from an order or a judgment in a civil action. HRS § 658A-28 (emphases added). However, the language in HRS § 658A-28(a)(5) appears to preclude appellate jurisdiction when a circuit court directs a rehearing, because HRS § 658A-28(a)(5) authorizes an appeal from an order vacating an arbitration award only when such an order does so "without directing a rehearing[.]" HRS § 658A~28(a)(5). v An appealable order is generally "an order ending the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be accomplished." Familian Northwest, Inc. v. Cent. Pacific Boiler & Pipinq, Ltd., 63 Haw. 368, 370, 714 P.2d 936j 937 (1986>