Lingle v. Hawai'i Government Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152
107 Haw. 178, 111 P.3d 587 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency's refusal to issue a declaratory ruling under HRS § 91-8 constitutes an appealable agency order, granting circuit courts jurisdiction for judicial review pursuant to HRS § 91-14, even if the proceeding was not a contested case requiring a mandatory hearing.
Facts:
- The State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (DOT) awarded a temporary assignment for a vacant Bargaining Unit 2 (BU-02) position to a BU-02 employee from another work location.
- The United Public Workers (UPW), the union for Bargaining Unit 1 (BU-01) employees, filed a grievance on behalf of William Kapuwai, a senior BU-01 employee in the same crew.
- UPW argued that its collective bargaining agreement (CBA1) required the DOT to award the temporary assignment to Kapuwai.
- The Hawaii Government Employees Association (HGEA), the union for BU-02 employees, had a separate collective bargaining agreement (CBA2) that required such temporary vacancies to be filled only by BU-02 employees.
- This created a conflict between the requirements of the two unions' collective bargaining agreements regarding the same temporary position.
- UPW initiated arbitration proceedings against the DOT to resolve its grievance.
- HGEA was not a party to the arbitration between UPW and the DOT.
Procedural Posture:
- The DOT petitioned the Hawaii Labor Relations Board (HLRB) for a declaratory ruling on its rights regarding temporary work assignments.
- UPW and HGEA both intervened in the HLRB proceeding.
- In a separate proceeding, an arbitrator issued an award in favor of UPW regarding the underlying grievance.
- The circuit court confirmed the arbitration award, making it a final judgment.
- The HLRB then denied the DOT's petition for a declaratory ruling, concluding that the confirmed arbitration award rendered the issue moot.
- HGEA appealed the HLRB's denial order to the circuit court.
- The circuit court, as an intermediate appellate court for this agency action, reversed the HLRB, finding it had erred in its mootness determination, and remanded the case to the HLRB for a ruling on the merits.
- UPW, as intervenor, appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Hawai'i.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a circuit court have jurisdiction under HRS § 91-14 to review an administrative agency's refusal to issue a declaratory ruling, when the governing statute makes a hearing discretionary rather than mandatory?
Opinions:
Majority - Moon, C.J.
Yes. A circuit court has jurisdiction to review an agency's refusal to issue a declaratory ruling. HRS § 91-8 states that orders disposing of petitions for declaratory rulings 'shall have the same status as other agency orders,' which, according to legislative history and precedent, makes them subject to judicial review under HRS § 91-14. The court reasoned that while a mandatory hearing is typically required for a 'contested case' appeal, the legislative history of the Hawai'i Administrative Procedure Act (HAPA) explicitly provides for judicial review of an agency's refusal to issue a declaratory ruling on the grounds of abuse of discretion. Furthermore, this court has consistently exercised jurisdiction over appeals from such orders in prior cases. The court also held that HGEA's appeal was not barred by collateral estoppel because HGEA was not a party to, nor in privity with a party to, the prior arbitration. Finally, the issue was not moot because it fell within the 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception, as the conflict between the unions' contracts was a recurring problem affecting the public interest.
Concurring - Acoba, J.
Yes. The circuit court had jurisdiction, and this conclusion is supported by an additional statutory construction argument. Under the doctrine of in pari materia, laws on the same subject should be construed together. The only 'other agency orders' mentioned in HAPA are those from 'contested cases' under HRS § 91-12, meaning the legislature intended for declaratory orders to have the same status, making them appealable. This interpretation is confirmed by HAPA's legislative history and its basis in the Revised Model State Administrative Procedure Act, which explicitly equates declaratory rulings with orders in contested cases. The legislative history further clarifies that a 'refusal' to issue a ruling is itself an agency order subject to judicial review.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a significant procedural aspect of Hawaiian administrative law, confirming that judicial review extends to an agency's inaction, specifically its refusal to issue a declaratory ruling. It prevents agencies from evading judicial oversight by simply declining to rule on a petition. This solidifies the right of interested parties to seek court intervention when an agency abuses its discretion by refusing to clarify the applicability of statutes or its own rules, thereby ensuring a path to resolution for recurring, systemic legal conflicts that might otherwise be unreviewable.
Unlock the full brief for Lingle v. Hawai'i Government Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152