244 P.3d 609
Haw. Ct. App.2010Background
- UPW and HGEA represent different bargaining units of state employees in Hawaii; both agreements contain broad arbitration provisions unrelated to each other.
- The disputes concern whether UPW employees are entitled to temporary assignments of HGEA bargaining unit 2 positions.
- UPW sought tripartite arbitration among UPW, HGEA, and the DOT; HGEA and the DOT opposed, arguing consolidation was inappropriate.
- Two bipartite arbitration awards addressed temporary assignments: Hunter (UPW favored) and Uesato (HGEA favored) with limited prospective relief.
- UPW also pursued a declaratory ruling via HLRB, which remained unresolved, while the district court denied consolidation.
- The circuit court denied UPW’s motion to compel consolidated tripartite arbitration; UPW appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court properly denied consolidation under HRS 658A-10 | UPW argues §658A-10(a) permits consolidation where there are separate agreements | HGEA/DOT contend no pending arbitrations negate consolidation and section requires pending proceedings | Court affirmed denial of consolidation |
| Whether tripartite arbitration should have been ordered despite bipartite awards | UPW contends federal law favors tripartite arbitration to avoid conflicting awards | Court found no personal nexus and final bipartite awards not in conflict | Court refused to compel tripartite arbitration |
| Whether Hawaii law governs arbitrability and bar to nonsignatory participation | UPW argues nonsignatory HGEA should be bound under arbitration agreements | Hawaii law does not extend arbitrability to nonsignatories here | Court applied Hawaii law and refused tripartite arbitration against nonsignatory HGEA |
| Whether the dispute is arbitrable under the respective agreements and proper forum | UPW seeks to compel arbitration under HGEA’s agreement | Arbitrability reserved; HLRB or separate proceedings may address the issue | Court refused to order arbitration under UPW’s theory; refined approach to arbitrability |
Key Cases Cited
- Koolau Radiology, Inc. v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 73 Haw. 433, 834 P.2d 1294 (Haw. 1992) (standards for compelling arbitration under Hawaii law)
- Bateman Constr., Inc. v. Haitsuka Bros., Ltd., 77 Hawai`i 481, 889 P.2d 58 (Haw. 1995) (consolidation under Uniform Arbitration Act; prerequisites for consolidation)
- Bronster v. United Public Workers Local 646, 90 Hawai`i 9, 975 P.2d 766 (Haw. 1999) (standing/authority in arbitration context; prong analysis)
- Luke v. Gentry Realty, Ltd., 105 Hawai`i 241, 96 P.3d 261 (Haw. 2004) (arbitration standing; privity and enforcement principles)
- Carey v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 375 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1964) (jurisdictional disputes in labor arbitration; tripartite framework origin)
- Kroger Co. v. Retail, Wholesale & Dep't Store Union, Local 390, 927 F.2d 275 (6th Cir. 1991) (tripartite arbitration to avoid conflicting awards; consolidation principles)
- Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Recording & Bldg. Ass'n, 414 F.2d 1326 (2d Cir. 1969) (benefits of consolidating related arbitration proceedings)
- Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union 2294, 600 F.2d 219 (9th Cir. 1979) (finality of arbitration awards; limitations on tripartite relief)
- U.S. Postal Serv. v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 893 F.2d 1117 (9th Cir. 1990) (limits on tripartite arbitration when respecting final bipartite awards)
- Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 214 F.3d 566 (5th Cir. 2000) (collateral estoppel concerns in tripartite orders)