244 P.3d 609
Haw. Ct. App.2010Background
- UPW and HGEA represent different bargaining units of state employees; UPW is unit 1, HGEA is unit 2 under HRS §§ 89-6(a)(1)-(2).
- Both unions’ contracts contain broad arbitration provisions and grievance procedures concerning disputes over temporary work assignments to bargaining unit 2 positions.
- UPW grievance (June 27, 1996) sought temporary assignments of F-2-05 supervisory position to UPW employees; Hunter arbitrated bipartite award in UPW’s favor; circuit court confirmed.
- HLRB declaratory ruling sought by State (1997) addressed DOT policy on temporary assignments to UPW vs HGEA; petition dismissed; remanded; later suspended pending bargaining.
- HGEA grievance (Dec. 30, 2003) challenged temporary assignments of F-1-10 position to UPW; Uesato arbitration awarded in favor of HGEA with limited prospective relief; circuit court confirmed.
- UPW (Jan. 30, 2007) filed class action grievance and (Feb. 15, 2007) motion to compel consolidated tripartite arbitration; circuit court denied (June 1, 2007) and judgment entered (June 29, 2007).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidation under HRS 658A-10 | UPW seeks tripartite consolidation despite no pending separate arbitrations. | Consolidation requires pending proceedings or explicit nexus; not applicable here. | Consolidation not required; no pending proceedings to consolidate. |
| Tripartite arbitration for arbitrability | UPW argues arbitrability should be decided by arbitrator under agreements. | Court should assess only existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement, not arbitrability when reserved for arbitrator. | Court properly declined tripartite arbitration; arbitrability not properly invoked. |
| Federal law on tripartite arbitration | Federal cases support tripartite arbitration to avoid conflicting awards. | Hawaii law governs; federal law not controlling here. | Hawaii law governs; federal approach not controlling; disputes not warranting tripartite arbitration. |
| Impact of prior bipartite awards | Final bipartite awards create risk of conflicting outcomes urging tripartite arbitration. | Awards are not mutually exclusive; finality and contractual nexus prevent tripartite arbitration. | Final bipartite awards do not require tripartite arbitration; no contractual nexus mandates it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Koolau Radiology, Inc. v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 73 Haw. 433 (Haw. 1992) (two-prong inquiry for compel arbitration; arbitrability not decided by court when agreements reserve it)
- Bateman Construction, Inc. v. Haitsuka Bros., Ltd., 77 Hawai'i 481 (Haw. 1995) (consolidation authority under Uniform Arbitration Act)
- Bronster v. United Public Workers Local 646, 90 Hawai'i 9 (Haw. 1999) (limits on standing to compel arbitration and Koolau prong analysis)
- Kroger II, Retail Union v. Kroger Co., 927 F.2d 275 (6th Cir. 1991) (tripartite arbitration when conflicting awards; finality and nexus considerations)
- Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2294, 600 F.2d 219 (9th Cir. 1979) (finality of awards; potential harsh consequences but finality governs)
- U.S. Postal Serv. v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 893 F.2d 1117 (9th Cir. 1990) (treatment of tripartite arbitration among labor unions; trend toward consolidation)