This subsection shall not be used to invalidate provisions of collective bargaining agreements in effect on and after June 30, 2007, and except as otherwise provided in this chapter, shall not preclude negotiations over the implementation of management decisions that affect terms and conditions of employment that are subject to collective bargaining. Further, this subsection shall not preclude negotiations over the procedures and criteria on promotions, transfers, assignments, demotions, layoffs, suspensions, terminations, discharges, or other disciplinary actions as subjects of bargaining during collective bargaining negotiations or negotiations over a memorandum of agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other supplemental agreement; provided that such obligation shall not compel either party to agree to a proposal or make a concession.
Violations of the procedures and criteria so negotiated may be subject to the grievance procedure in the collective bargaining agreement.
provided that the parties may mutually agree on repricing procedures in conformance with this section; provided further that a repricing request can only be submitted once per occupation in any eighteen-month period; provided further that impasse procedures shall not apply if the impasse occurs within one hundred eighty days after a collective bargaining agreement has been reached between the employer and the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no more than fifteen repricing impasse procedures shall be active at any time. If an impasse procedure would have triggered, but cannot begin because it would exceed the maximum fifteen active repricing impasse procedures, the parties shall continue to negotiate until such time as the repricing impasse procedure begins; provided that preference for new repricing impasse procedures shall be given to repricings in the order in which they began.
HRS § 89-9
Sections 87-4 and 87-1(8) referred to in subsection (e) are repealed. For present provisions, see chapter 87A.
Attorney General Opinions
Pursuant to this section and § 304-11, board of regents may enter into a collective bargaining agreement providing for tuition exemption for faculty and staff members. Att. Gen. Op. 74-12.
Hawaii Legal Reporter Citations
Mandatory subjects of negotiation--classification plans. 78-2 HLR 78-939.
Where dates upon which plaintiffs were paid were not a "cost item" as that term is defined in § 89-2, plaintiffs' contention that timing of their paychecks as it stood on June 30, 1999 was continued another two years until July 1, 2001 by Act 100, L 1999 (which, inter alia, amended this section), lacked merit. Even if payroll lag was a cost item, the collective bargaining agreement expired on June 30, 1999; plaintiffs' rights under the collective bargaining agreement expired on that day. 125 F. Supp. 2d 1237. Board was empowered to make declaratory judgment regarding validity of collective bargaining agreement.60 Haw. 436,591 P.2d 113. Section does not bar arbitration of grievances over tenure and promotion. 66 H. 207, 659 P.2d 717. Does not limit board's power to order union to implement staffing of essential positions. 66 H. 461, 667 P.2d 783. Policy statement was not bargainable to the extent that it constituted compliance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act. Because the Act inherently mandated implementation, appellant need not wait until appellee attempted an implementation of an apparatus to effectuate the policy; because implementation would affect bargainable topics, appellant may initiate bargaining at any time upon such topics. 79 H. 154, 900 P.2d 161. County did not violate collective bargaining statutes by refusing to bargain over effects of privatization where because privatization effort was contrary to law, it was outside scope of negotiable topics.85 Haw. 61,937 P.2d 397. Section 2 of Act 100, L 1999 violated the rights of public employees under article XIII, §2 of the Hawaii constitution by amending this section to prohibit public employers and public employees' unions from collectively bargaining over cost items for the biennium 1999 to 2001. 100 H. 138, 58 P.3d 649. Section 2 of Act 100, L 1999 (which amended subsection (a)) violated article XIII, §2 of the Hawaii constitution because it withdrew from the collective bargaining process core subjects such as wages, hours, and other conditions of employment that the voters contemplated would be part of the bargaining process when they ratified article XIII, §2. 101 H. 46, 62 P.3d 189. The general prohibition in subsection (d) against a public employer and the exclusive representative of a collective bargaining unit agreeing to a "proposal inconsistent with merit principles" is subject to this subsection's provisions allowing for, inter alia, negotiation of promotion and demotion procedures in a collective bargaining agreement and a grievance process for violation thereof; § 76-1, Revised Charter of Honolulu §§ 6-302, 6-306, 6-308, and rules of the civil service commission §§ 13-2 and 13-3 do not conflict with subsection (d).106 Haw. 205,103 P.3d 365. In light of the plain language of subsection (d), labor relations board erred in concluding that the city's proposed transfer of refuse workers from one location to another was subject to collective bargaining under subsection (a). 106 H. 359, 105 P.3d 236. As subsection (d) precludes collective bargaining over classification issues and thus places them out of the reach of an arbitrator, who derived jurisdiction and authority from the collective bargaining agreement, arbitrator lacked arbitral jurisdiction. 101 H. 11 (App.), 61 P.3d 522.