§89-8.5 Negotiating authority; Hawaii health systems corporation. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, including section 89-6(d), the Hawaii health systems corporation or any of the regional boards, as a sole employer negotiator, may negotiate with the exclusive representative of any appropriate bargaining unit and execute memorandums of understanding for employees under its control to alter any existing or new collective bargaining agreement on any item or items subject to section 89-9. [L 2009, c 182, §5; am L 2015, c 103, §§3, 7]

Case Notes

Although plaintiff argued that Act 103, Session Laws of Hawaii 2015, violated the contract clause of the United States Constitution because it interfered with the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between unions representing public employees and the state Hawaii Health Systems Corporation (HHSC), court found that the transfer of management and operation of three state-owned medical facilities to a private entity did not substantially impair the CBA. The CBA did not guarantee employment for the duration of the CBA, contained no explicit or implicit term that required the HHSC to operate any facility for the duration of the CBA, and explicitly contemplated possibility of employer-wide layoff, as well as layoffs due to a lack of work, needs, or funds. 166 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (2016).

No diversity jurisdiction in an action where union, representing public employees who worked for state agency responsible for management of state-owned medical facilities, sought a preliminary injunction enjoining governor from implementing Hawaii law transferring management and operation of three state-owned medical facilities to a private entity. State of Hawaii, a real party in interest, was not a "citizen" for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction and, thus, could not be sued in federal court. 166 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (2016).

Plaintiff did not demonstrate that Act 103, Session Laws of Hawaii 2015, which directed the governor to transfer management and operation of three state-owned medical facilities to a private entity, conflicted with a provision of Act 262, Session Laws of Hawaii 1996, which established the state Hawaii Health Systems Corporation (HHSC), that prohibited the agency to enter into contractual or business relations, so as to impair, in violation of the contract clause of the United States Constitution, collective bargaining agreement between state and union representing public employees who worked for HHSC. 166 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (2016).

Plaintiff did not show that Act 103, Session Laws of Hawaii 2015, substantially impaired any collective bargaining agreement provisions by depriving public employee union members, employed by the Hawaii Health Systems Corporation, of statutory protections concerning the State's civil service system and merit principle or public employees' bargaining rights. Thus, there was no violation of the contract clause of the United States Constitution since civil service positions were creations of state law and could be eliminated by legislative act without violating statutory protections. 166 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (2016).