Preview:

* * * NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * * __________________________________________________________________
NO. 22022 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I JACK T. KONNO; SAMUEL K. KALUA, III; GARY W. RODRIGUES; UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO, Plaintiffs-Appellants vs. COUNTY OF HAWAI#I; STEPHEN K. YAMASHIRO; DONNA FAY K. KIYOSAKI; RICHARD WURDEMAN; MICHAEL BEN, as Director of the Department of Personnel, County of Hawai#i; SPENCER KALANI SCHUTTE; TAKASHI DOMINGO; JIMMY ARAKAKI; KEOLA CHILDS; JIM RATH; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, ROE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 1-10; and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants-Appellees and WASTE MANAGEMENT OF HAWAII, INC., Intervenor/Appellee APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 93-281) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy JJ., and Circuit Judge Perkins, in place of Acoba, J., recused) Plaintiffs-Appellants Jack T. Konno; Samuel K. Kalua, III; Gary W. Rodrigues; United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO [hereinafter collectively, the Plaintiffs], appeal the following, filed by the third circuit court, the Honorable Riki May Amano presiding: (1) Order (filed June 16, 1997)

Granting Motion (filed May 22, 1997) for Authorization to Continue Private Operations at the Pu#uanahulu Landfill and to

* * * NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * * __________________________________________________________________
Receive Continued Payment for Private Operations; (2) Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (filed September 5, 1997) and All Related Oral Rulings of the Court Leading to Said Determination; (3) Order (filed April 8, 1998) Regarding Transfer of Operations and Other Transitional Matters as Required by This Court's September 5, 1997 Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Written Request for Specific Additional Relief; (4) Order (filed May 13, 1998) Granting Plaintiffs' Second Written Request for Additional Relief Specific to Wage Losses Pursuant to September 5, 1997 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order and November 10, 1997 Hearing; (5) Judgment Filed October 8, 1998; and (6) Notice of Entry of Judgment Filed October 8, 1998. On appeal, the Plaintiffs contend that the circuit court: (1) erred by disobeying the instructions and mandate of

this court by refusing to grant summary judgment to United Public Workers (UPW), approving further privatization by Waste Management of Hawaii, Inc. (WMI), and declining to order the transfer of all eight "landfill worker positions" at Pu#uanahulu; (2) erred by failing to follow the law of the case established in Konno v. County of Hawai#i, 85 Hawai#i 61, 937 P.2d 397 (1997) (Konno I), on civil service coverage and exemptions at Pu#uanahulu; (3) erred in its determination that illegal portions of the WMI-County contract were severable; and (4) erred in

2

* * * NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * * __________________________________________________________________
denying legal, equitable, and statutory remedies to Plaintiffs consistent with "public interest concerns." Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted, we hold as follows: (1) The circuit court fully complied with the mandate of Konno I. In Konno I, we vacated the circuit court's award of

summary judgment in favor of the County in No. 18203 and instructed the circuit court to do the following: (a) grant the

Plaintiffs a summary declaratory judgment; (b) fashion injunctive relief requiring the landfill to be transferred from private operation to County operation as rapidly as possible but consistent with practical and public interest concerns; (c) monitor the transition of the landfill's operation; and (d) determine whether the additional relief requested by the Plaintiffs was appropriate. Upon motion for reconsideration, we

modified our decision to allow the circuit court to consider the practical concerns of the parties in the transition from private operation to County operation of the landfill. complied with each of these instructions. The circuit court

When the parties could

not agree on (1) which landfill positions could be privatized, and (2) a transition plan, the circuit court ordered the parties to brief these issues. Following briefing and evidentiary

hearings, the circuit court determined that waste intake services

3

* * * NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * * __________________________________________________________________
were customarily and traditionally performed by civil servants and thus could not be privatized under Konno I and set forth a transition plan. The circuit court held additional hearings to

monitor the status of the transition and determine the Plaintiffs' request for additional relief. A declaratory

judgment ordering transfer of the waste intake service positions from WMI to the County was subsequently entered. In sum, the

circuit court fully complied with the mandate of Konno I. (2) The circuit court did not relitigate the issue of civil service coverage and exemption at the Pu'uanahulu landfill. In Konno I, we drew the distinction between the (a) construction and (b) operation of the new landfill, and noted that the Plaintiffs did not oppose the private construction of the landfill but did strenuously object to the private operation of the landfill. We further noted that the County contracted with

WMI for both construction and operation of the landfill and held that it was the operation of the landfill that conflicted with civil service laws and merit principles. We thus held that the

contract between the County and WMI was void as a violation of public policy to the extent that it provides for the private operation at the Pu'uanahulu landfill. We did not specifically

determine which landfill positions could be privatized but instead left it for the circuit court's determination on remand.

4

* * * NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * * __________________________________________________________________
Contrary to the Plaintiffs' assertion in this case, we did not hold that the entire contract between the County and WMI was void. Thus, the circuit court's finding that the scope of the

Konno I decision was limited to the operation of the landfill was not erroneous and did not relitigate the issue of civil service coverage and exemption. (3) The circuit court correctly determined that the contract between WMI and the County was severable and was void only to the extent that it provided for privatization of waste intake services. The contract itself shows the parties intent

that the contract be severable, inasmuch as it contained an express severability clause (

Download Konno v. County of Hawaii.pdf

Hawaii Law