Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-12-0000825
12-DEC-2012
09:09 AM
SCPW-12-0000825
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
HAWAI#I STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner,
vs.
HAWAI#I LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; JAMES B. NICHOLSON,
Chairperson of the Hawai#i Labor Relations Board;
and ROCK B. LEY, Member of the Hawai#i Labor
Relations Board (2012-017),
and
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Governor of the State of Hawai#i; KALBERT
YOUNG, Director of the Department of Budget and Finance of the
State of Hawai#i; NEIL DIETZ, Chief Negotiator of the Office of
Collective Bargaining of the State of Hawai#i; KATHRYN MATAYOSHI,
Superintendent of the Department of Education of the State of
Hawai#i; DONALD G. HORNER, Chairperson of the Board of Education
of the State of Hawai#i; JAMES D. WILLIAMS, Member of the Board
of Education of the State of Hawai#i,
and
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI#I PROFESSIONAL ASSEMBLY
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CASE NO. CE-05-781)
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Pollack, JJ., and
Circuit Judge Chang, in place of McKenna, J., recused)
On September 28, 2012, petitioner Hawai#i State
Teachers Association (“HSTA”) filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus seeking an order directing the Hawai#i Labor Relations
Board (“HLRB”) to issue an order or decision on its prohibited
practice complaint and motion for interlocutory relief in Case
No. CE-05-781.
On October 19, 2012, this court (1) denied without
prejudice petitioner’s request for a decision on the prohibited
practice complaint, and (2) ordered the HLRB and the other
respondents to answer the petition with respect to petitioner’s
request for a decision on the motion for interlocutory relief.
The HLRB and the other respondents timely answered.
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus, the
answers to the petition, the respective supporting documents, and
the record, it appears that there is no rule or statute that
delineates a specific time within which the HLRB must resolve the
pending motion for interlocutory relief. Nevertheless, the HLRB
has indicated that in exercising its discretion to manage its
cases, it has “determined that it would be more efficient to
direct its efforts to issue a final decision on the merits, which
includes a discussion of the [m]otion for [i]nterlocutory
[r]elief.” In light of the HLRB’s determination to consolidate
its ruling on the motion for interlocutory relief with
disposition of the merits of the prohibited practice complaint,
the HLRB is subject to the promptness requirement set forth in
2
HRS § 377-9(d) (Supp. 2011) with respect to the motion for
interlocutory relief. See HRS § 377-9(d) (“After the final
hearing, the board shall promptly make and file an order or
decision, incorporating findings of fact upon all the issues
involved in the controversy and the determination of the rights
of the parties.”); see also HRS § 89-5(i)(10) (Supp. 2011) (the
HLRB is required to “[e]xecute . . . its responsibilities in a
timely manner”). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that as to the HSTA’s request for
a decision on its motion for interlocutory relief, the petition
for a writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 12, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Gary W.B. Chang
3