Hawaii State Teachers Association v. Hawaii Labor Relations Board ( 2011 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-11-0000640
27-SEP-2011
08:23 AM
NO. SCPW-11-0000640
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
HAWAII STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner,
vs.
HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; JAMES B. NICHOLSON,
Chairperson, Hawaii Labor Relations Board; SESNITA A.D.
MOEPONO, Member, Hawaii Labor Relations Board; and
ROCK B. LEY, Member, Hawaii Labor Relations Board,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(Case No. CE-05-781)
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.
and Circuit Judge Trader, in place of McKenna, J., recused.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandamus filed by petitioner Hawaii State Teachers Association
and the papers in support, it appears that: (1) no statute or
rule prescribes a time in which respondent Hawaii Labor Relations
Board (HLRB) must resolve a motion for interlocutory relief and
absent such prescribed time, the "timely" resolution under HRS §
89-5(i)(10) (Supp. 2010) of petitioner's motion for interlocutory
relief is within the discretion and judgment of respondent HLRB
and is not a ministerial duty subject to mandamus; (2) HRS § 377-
9(d) (Supp. 2010) requires "prompt" filing of a final order, not
an interlocutory order; and (3) there is no evidence that
respondent HLRB's ruling on petitioner's motion for interlocutory
relief, when issued, will not be supported by "findings of fact
and conclusions" pursuant to HRS § 89-5(e) (Supp. 2010).
It further appears that: (1) there is no evidence that
respondent HLRB has not made full and complete disclosure of
communications received from the parties in Case No. CE-05-781;
(2) the hearing on petitioner's complaint in Case No. CE-05-781
commenced on August 30, 2011; and (3) HRS § 89-12(b)(2) (Supp.
2010) requires resolution only of Case No. CE-05-781 before
petitioner may exercise its right to strike.
Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus
relief. See HRS § 602-5(3) (Supp. 2010) (“The supreme court
shall have jurisdiction and power . . . [t]o exercise original
jurisdiction in all questions . . . arising under writs of
mandamus directed to public officers to compel them to fulfill
the duties of their offices[.];” In re Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaii
Supreme Court, 91 Hawai#i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (1999)
(Mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a
duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s
claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial
and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other
2
remedy is available; Salling v. Moon, 76 Hawai#i 273, 274 n.3,
874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3 (1994) (“A duty is ministerial where the
law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such
precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of
discretion and judgment.”). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 27, 2011.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.
/s/ Rom A. Trader
3