HB161 amends Hawaii’s collective bargaining grievance law, specifically Section 89-10.8 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. The bill changes the rules governing who may grieve a suspension or discharge under a collective bargaining agreement. Under current law, certain employees exempt from chapter 76 and serving at the pleasure of the appointing authority are barred from grieving those actions unless the collective bargaining agreement says otherwise. HB161 repeals that restriction and instead allows any employee in an appropriate bargaining unit, as well as their excluded counterparts, to grieve a suspension or discharge.
The bill also preserves the existing framework for grievance procedures involving disputes over the interpretation or application of written agreements and for adverse actions tied to performance requirements, which must still be decided by a performance judge. The measure is set to take effect on July 1, 3000, which is effectively a placeholder date and means the bill would not take effect in the near term as written.
Impact
HB161 would broaden access to the grievance process for public employees in Hawaii, including certain exempt employees who previously lacked the ability to challenge suspensions or discharges through collective bargaining procedures. It would amend the state’s labor relations statutes by removing a categorical prohibition and replacing it with a more inclusive rule for bargaining-unit members and excluded counterparts. Public employers, unions, and affected employees would be the primary parties impacted, with potential effects on disciplinary review, workplace due process, and negotiated labor agreements.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest generally favorable treatment of employee grievance rights and expanded procedural protections for workers. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from hearings or floor action. Based on the text alone, the measure appears aimed at strengthening collective bargaining rights rather than restricting them.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the expansion of grievance rights to employees who were previously excluded, especially those serving at the pleasure of the appointing authority or otherwise exempt from civil service protections. Supporters would likely view the change as a fairness and due process improvement, while opponents may argue it limits managerial discretion and increases administrative or litigation burdens for public employers. Another possible issue is the interaction between the new rule and existing collective bargaining agreements, since the bill changes default statutory rights that may affect negotiated discipline procedures.