Blangiardi v. Hawaii Fire Fighters Association

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
20-NOV-2024
08:18 AM
Dkt. 76 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

RICK BLANGIARDI, MAYOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU;
SHELDON K. HAO, FIRE CHIEF, HONOLULU FIRE DEPARTMENT,
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; HONOLULU FIRE DEPARTMENT,
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; and CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,
Respondents-Appellants-Appellants,
v.
HAWAII FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, IAFF, LOCAL 1463, AFL-CIO,
Complainant-Appellee-Appellee,
and
HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; MARCUS R. OSHIRO;
SESNITA A.D. MOEPONO; and J N. MUSTO,
Agency-Appellees-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting C.J., and Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)
Respondents-Appellants Rick Blangiardi, Mayor, City and

County of Honolulu;1 Sheldon K. Hao, Fire Chief, Honolulu Fire

Department, City and County of Honolulu;2 Honolulu Fire

Department, City and County of Honolulu (HFD); and City and

County of Honolulu (collectively, the City), appeal from the

1
Pursuant to Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule
43(c)(1), Mayor Blangiardi is automatically substituted for former Mayor Kirk
Caldwell.
2
Pursuant to HRAP Rule 43(c)(1), Fire Chief Sheldon K. Hao, is
automatically substituted for former Fire Chief Manuel P. Neves.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

May 11, 2021 Decision and Order Affirming the [Hawaii Labor

Relation Board (HLRB or the Board)] Order No. 3658 Dated

September 23, 2020 (Order Affirming Order No. 3658), entered by

the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court),3 in favor

of Complainant-Appellee Hawaii Fire Fighters Association, IAFF,

Local 1463, AFL-CIO (HFFA).

HFFA is an employee organization within the meaning of

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 89-2 (2012) and duly certified as

the exclusive bargaining representative of all fire fighters in
bargaining unit 11 (BU 11), effective February 4, 1972. Section

6 of the BU 11 Collective Bargaining Agreement, effective July 1,

2011, to June 20, 2017 (Agreement), provides in relevant part:

Section 6. INFORMATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL [( I&E)] MEETINGS.

[I&E meetings] may be held by the [HFFA] once every
calendar quarter, to be conducted by its duly recognized
officers and/or stewards and shall be open to all Employees
in [BU 11], including members and non-members of the [HFFA].
The [HFD] or its representatives shall permit its Employees
to attend such meetings held during working hours and such
meeting shall be limited to not more than two (2) hours.
The [HFFA] shall give written notice to the [HFD] or its
representative at least five (5) calendar days prior to the
date of the meetings. Such meetings shall be allowed at
dates, times and places which do not interfere with the
normal operations of the respective Fire Departments. These
meetings may include multiple sessions in order to
accommodate Employees in the bargaining unit.

Section 6 meetings are vital to the function of the

HFFA as the exclusive bargaining representative, and in the

satisfaction of its statutory duty of fair representation

pursuant to HRS § 89-8(a) (2012). Section 6 I&E meetings have

been contained in the BU 11 Agreements since 1976, and the

meetings have remained substantially unchanged since that time,

up to and including the then current BU 11 Agreement.

3
The Honorable James H. Ashford presided.

-2-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Historically, Section 6 I&E meetings have occurred in Fire

Stations on an as requested basis with the expressed prior

approval of Station Commanders/Captains and/or Battalion Chiefs,

with notice to the appropriate Chief in accordance with Section 6

of the Agreement.

On May 29, 2014, the HFFA, in accordance with Section 6

of the Agreement, informed HFD Fire Chief Manuel Neves (Chief

Neves) of its intent to conduct I&E meetings at HFD worksites

between June 16, 2014, and June 15, 2015. By June 13, 2014, a
dispute arose between the HFD and HFFA that culminated in a

June 17, 2014 blanket prohibition by HFD against all HFFA station

visitations. On June 18, 2014, pursuant to the HFD's blanket

prohibition, two HFFA Oahu Executive Board members were asked to

leave a previously scheduled Section I&E meeting. On June 20,

2014, Chief Neves attempted to unilaterally establish a process

for the conduct of contractual I&E meetings by HFFA with its

members.

On August 27, 2014, HFFA filed with the Board the

prohibited practice complaint for Case No. 14-CE-11-845 (2014

Case), challenging the removal of HFFA Executive Board members

from a pre-arranged and approved Section 6 I&E meeting, and Chief

Neves's unilateral establishment of the process for the conduct

of contractual I&E meetings. The 2014 Case was scheduled for

hearing in December 2015, but was suspended for settlement

discussions. The parties had not resolved all issues included in

the 2014 Case by 2016.

On August 16, 2016, Chief Neves informed HFFA in

writing of his unilateral implementation of a prohibition of all

-3-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

station visits, including Section 6 I&E meetings, until after

5:00 PM. Subsequently, Chief Neves allowed station visits to

occur prior to 5:00 PM for non-bargaining unit agencies, but

continued to prohibit BU 11 Section 6 I&E meetings until after

5:00 PM. As of August 16, 2016, it appears there had been no

prior incidents of Section 6 I&E meetings interfering with the

normal operations of the HFD. On November 14, 2016, HFFA filed

with the Board the prohibited practice complaint for (Case No.

16-CE-11-887 (2016 Case), challenging the unilateral prohibition

against HFFA Section 6 I&E meetings prior to 5:00 PM.

On November 30, 2016, the Board entered Order No. 3212

Order Consolidating Cases and Notice of Consolidated Hearing

Dates and Deadlines (Order No. 3212), granting the HFFA's motion

to consolidate the 2014 and 2016 Cases. The Board found that the

two cases involved the same parties and substantially the same

issues, and that "consolidation of the two cases will be

conducive to the proper dispatch of the Board's business, to the

ends of justice, and will not unduly delay the proceedings nor

prejudice the presentation of either case."

The Board held the consolidated proceeding hearing in

December 2016. On June 8, 2018, the Board entered Order No. 3368

Final Order Adopting HFFA/IAFF Proposed Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order (Order No. 3368). The

Board concluded, inter alia, that:

[The City's] implementation of changes to Section 6
[I&E] meetings or the imposition of a requirement that [I&E]
meetings only be held after 5:00 p.m. was a matter requiring
[the HFD] to meet at reasonable times, to confer and
negotiate in good faith, with HFFA pursuant to Section
89-9(a), HRS.

-4-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
[The City's] unilateral action changing or imposing
the requirement that [I&E] meetings only be held after 5:00
p.m. constitutes an unlawful refusal to bargain.
[The City's] unilateral action changing or imposing
the requirement that [I&E] meetings only be held after 5:00
p.m. deprived, and interfered with BU 11 employees, and
their certified employee organization to [engage] in rights
guaranteed under chapter 89, HRS.

. . . .
Accordingly, the Board holds and concludes that HFD's
refusal to negotiate with the HFFA and acting unilaterally
regarding the requirement that [I&E] meetings be held after
5:00 p.m., which is a mandatory subject of bargaining,
constitutes a violation of HRS § 89-13(a)(1).
. . . .

The Board further concludes that based on the
circumstances of this case showing that HFD permitted other
visitors, including VOYA, access to the fire station with or
without prior notice and before 5:00 p.m., the requirement
that [I&E] meetings only be held after 5:00 p.m. was
selectively and discriminatorily applied to HFFA further
constituting a violation of HRS § 89-l3(a)(1).

. . . .
The Board further finds that the HFD's unilateral,
selective, and discriminatory denial of HFFA's access to the
fire station before 5:00 p.m., constitutes a stifling of the
employee's free choice in violation of HRS § 89-l3(a)(2).
. . . .

Based on the totality of circumstances in this case,
the Board finds the actions of [the City] set forth herein,
through their representatives, to be wilfull.

The Board further finds and concludes that the actions
complained of herein do not constitute a prohibited practice
under HRS Section 89-13(a)(5), (7), or (8), because as
already determined in Order No. 3293, with respect to the
breach of collective bargaining agreement allegations
(Section 89-13(a)(8)), the HFFA was required to exhaust
contractual remedies before bringing the claim before the
Board; and the Board finds the remaining assertions
(Sections 89-13(a)(5) and (a)(7)) redundant and superfluous
to the Section 89-13(a)(1), (2) and (8) claims.
The Board denies all other claims and allegations
brought by the HFFA in this consolidated proceeding.

In footnote 11 of Order No. 3368, the Board stated, "In

issuing Board Order No. 3212 in the consolidated cases . . . the

Board finds in both cases the HFFA/IFFA was the prevailing

party." The Board stated that it would address HFFA's request

for attorneys' fees and costs in a separate order.

-5-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

The City appealed Order No. 3368 to the Circuit Court

on July 9, 2018. Oral argument for the appeal was heard on

June 14, 2019. During oral argument regarding the prevailing

party issue, the Circuit Court stated in relevant part:

However, as I continued to look through the order, I
see absolutely nothing in the conclusions of law that has
any tendency to establish that the City prevailed in any way
in the 2014 case.
Yet the conclusions of law are replete with
conclusions that make perfectly clear that the board found
the union to be the prevailing party in the 2016 case
concerning the 5 o'clock letter.
Furthermore, the conclusions of law state, quote, The
board denies all other claims and allegations brought by the
HFFA in this consolidated proceeding, end quote, which tends
to indicate that all claims involving either the 2014 case
or the 2016 case which are not specifically resolved in
Order No. 3368 are denied.

So in essence I see a lack of clarity. I do find that
Order No. 3368 is unclear on this topic. From the language
in the order, I cannot tell if, Possibility A, the board
ruled globally that the City violated Hawaii Revised
Statutes 89-13(a)(1) and (2) based on an amalgamation of
facts and allegations from both cases or, Possibility No. 2,
in my view from the language of the order, is that instead
the board ruled separately that first the City violated
(a)(1) and (a)(2), 89-13(a)(1) and (2), and in the 2014 case
based on facts pertaining only to the 2014 case, and then
separately ruled in the 2016 case based on facts pertaining
only to the 2016 case.
. . . .

Therefore, cutting to the chase, on this topic at
least, the footnote on page 5 of Order No. 3368 is vacated.
Case is remanded for the board to make a clear and
unambiguous statement whether the union prevailed on just
the 2016 case or on both the 2016 case and the 2014 case.
That takes care of the first issue presented in my view.

On August 12, 2019, the Circuit Court issued the Order

Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part, and Remanding Order No. 3368

(Order Remanding Order No. 3368), vacating footnote 11 of Order

No. 3368, and affirming Order No. 3368 in all other respects.

The Circuit Court remanded the case to the Board to "make a clear

and unambiguous determination as to whether [HFFA] prevailed" in

the consolidated cases.

-6-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

On September 23, 2020, the Board issued Order No. 3658

Order Clarifying Board Order No. 3368 on Remand (Order No. 3658).

The Board inserted the Conclusion of Law below, following the

final paragraph of page 12 of Order No. 3368:

The consolidation of the cases allows the Board to consider
the relevant facts and circumstances of the two cases
together. The Board hereby finds that HFFA/IAFF is the
prevailing party of the consolidated cases and that
HFFA/IAFF’s position as the prevailing party relies on the
amalgamate of circumstances of the two cases, rather than on
the circumstances of either case individually.

The City appealed Order No. 3658 to the Circuit Court.
The Circuit Court affirmed. On the issue of whether the Board

complied with the Order Remanding Order No. 3368, the Circuit

Court stated:

On the first issue, the Court determines that Order
No. 3658 is unambiguous. Board Order No. 3658 states that
the Board determined that HFFA prevailed in the consolidated
case, which the Board treated as an amalgamation of the 2014
and 2016 cases. The Board in Order No. 3658 clarified that
it treated those two cases under what the Court in the oral
argument held June 14, 2019 . . . described as possibility
A. The Board clearly stated that it treated the 2014 and
2016 cases as merged.

Board Order No. 3658 does set out a conclusion of law.
The Board states the new language being added to Order No.
3368 is a conclusion of law and characterizes it as such.
The Board inserted the new language into the conclusion of
law section of Order No. 3368. The Court concludes the new
language in Order No. 3658 being added to Order No. 3368 is
in reality a conclusion of law.

On the issue of whether the merger of the consolidated

cases was erroneous, the Circuit Court concluded:

On the second issue, the Court does not agree that the
Board's merger of the 2014 and 2016 cases was an error of
law. Appellants argue Rule 42 of the Hawai #i Rules of Civil
Procedures [(HRCP)] is controlling . . . . This argument is
misplaced.

. . . .
Rule 42 of the HRCP does not apply to consolidation in
an agency proceeding. The [HRCP] apply to the circuit
courts in civil matters. The Board in its Order No. 3212
consolidating the 2014 and 2016 cases ruled that it was
consolidating the cases pursuant [to] Rule 12-42-8(g), and
its various subparts of the Hawai#i Administrative Rules

-7-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
[(HAR)]. The Board was not applying Rule 42(a), HRCP, or
Hawai#i jurisprudence because the Board has its own rules.
The Board has discretion to determine the scope of its
consolidation order and it did so in this case. . . .

The City timely appealed.

The City raises two points of error on appeal,

contending that the Circuit Court committed reversible error in

concluding that the HLRB was correct in holding that: (1) HFFA

was the prevailing party in the 2014 Case for the purpose of

attorneys' fees and costs, and (2) HFFA was the prevailing party

in the consolidated 2014 Case and the 2016 Case based on an

amalgamation of circumstances and effectively merging the

consolidated cases.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we

resolve the City's points of error as follows:

Because the question of whether the HLRB erred in

determining that HFFA was the prevailing party in the 2014 Case

depends on whether the 2014 and 2016 Cases may be considered as

merged, we consider the City's second point of error first.

The City argues that the Circuit Court and the Board

erred in determining HFFA was the prevailing party in the

consolidated cases based on an amalgamation of circumstances and

the effective merger of the consolidated cases. The City

contends that the Board failed to follow the Circuit Court's

Order Remanding Order No. 3368 by failing to unambiguously

determine whether HFFA was the prevailing party in the 2014 Case.

HRS § 89-5(i)(4) (Supp. 2023) gives the Board the power

to "[c]onduct proceedings on complaints of prohibited practices

-8-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

by employers, employees, and employee organizations and take such

actions with respect thereto as it deems necessary and proper."

HAR Title 12, Chapter 42 sets forth the Board's Rules of Practice

and Procedure under HRS Chapter 89.4 HAR § 12-42-1. The Board

in Order No. 3212 consolidated the 2014 and 2016 Cases pursuant

to HAR § 12-42-8(g)(13).5

HAR § 12-42-8(g)(13) provided the Board the authority

to consolidate proceedings "for hearings or other purposes" if it

finds that such consolidation was "conducive to the proper

dispatch of its business." (Emphasis added.) Regarding the

meaning of the term "consolidation," the parties have argued

about Professors Wright and Miller's explanation:

In the context of legal procedure, "consolidation" is
used in three different senses:

(1) When all except one of several actions are stayed
until one is tried, in which case the judgment in the one
trial is conclusive as to the others. This is not actually
a consolidation but sometimes is referred to as such.

(2) When several actions are combined into one, lose
their separate identity, and become a single action in which
a single judgment is rendered. An illustration of this is
the situation in which several actions are pending between
the same parties stating claims that might have been set out
originally as separate counts in one complaint.

(3) When several actions are ordered to be tried
together but each retains its separate character and
requires the entry of a separate judgment. This type of
consolidation does not merge the suits into a single action,
or cause the parties to one action to be parties to another.

4
HAR Title 12 Chapter 42 has since been repealed. D EP'T LAB. &
INDUS. REL., REPEAL OF CHAPTERS 12-41 AND 12-42 AND ADOPTION OF CHAPTER 12-43, HAR (eff.
Oct. 21, 2022).
5
HAR § 12-42-8(g)(13) provides:
(13) The board, on its own initiative or upon motion, may
consolidate for hearing or other purposes or may
contemporaneously consider two or more proceedings
which involve substantially the same parties or issues
if it finds that such consolidation of proceedings or
contemporaneous consideration will be conducive to the
proper dispatch of its business and to the ends of
justice and will not unduly delay the proceedings.

-9-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

9A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

§ 2382 (3d ed. 2024). The Hawai#i Supreme Court has stated that

"our courts have apparently followed the interpretation adopted

by the federal courts" that HRCP Rule 426 consolidation

"provide[s] only for the third of these procedures." Cnty. of

Haw. v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd. P'ship, 119 Hawai#i 352, 371, 198

P.3d 615, 634 (2008).

The City points to the supreme court's interpretation

of HRCP Rule 42 to assert that the Board cannot adopt Wright and

Miller's second interpretation to "merge" the constituent 2014

and 2016 Cases under HAR § 12-42-8(g) consolidation. However, as

this court has previously stated:

Court rules and related case law . . . do not govern agency
proceedings, except through the proper adoption of a rule or
amendment authorized by law. See HRS §§ 91-3 & 91-9.
Reliance on case law interpreting court rules, as opposed to
the statutes, administrative rules, and cases directly
applicable to an agency's proceedings may in some instances
lead to an improper procedure or an erroneous conclusion.

Los Banos v. Haw. Labor Relations Bd., No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2019

WL 6248555, at *15 (Haw. App. Nov. 22, 2019) (Mem. Op.). The

Board's application of HAR § 12-42-8(g)(13) is not governed by

case law interpreting HRCP Rule 42. See id.

Furthermore, the Board's rules provided for a liberal

construction to effect the purpose of HRS Chapter 89 and to

6
HRCP Rule 42 is identical to its counterpart Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure Rule 42, with both providing in relevant part:

Rule 42. CONSOLIDATION; SEPARATE TRIALS
(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common
question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may
order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in
issue in the actions; it may order all the actions
consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning
proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs
or delay.

-10-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

secure the just and speedy determination of every proceeding.

HAR § 12-42-2. The Board's rules did not limit the scope of the

Board's authority to consolidate proceedings. HAR § 12-42-8.

Accordingly, we cannot say that the Board lacked the authority to

merge cases under HAR § 12-42-8(g)(13) consolidation if it found

that doing so "will be conducive to the proper dispatch of its

business and to the ends of justice and will not unduly delay the

proceedings."

Here, in consolidating the 2014 and 2016 Cases, the

Board expressly found that the cases involved the same parties

and substantially the same issues, so that merging the cases was

"conducive to the proper dispatch of the Board's business, to the

ends of justice, and will not unduly delay the proceedings nor

prejudice the presentation of either case." The Board later

added that this amalgamation of circumstances and cases warranted

a finding that HFFA was the prevailing party for the cases, as

consolidated, rather than for either case individually. We

conclude that the Board did not exceed its authority in

determining the prevailing party of the consolidated cases based

on the amalgamation of circumstances, i.e., based on the Board's

decision to effectively merge the 2014 and 2016 Cases.

Additionally, the Board in issuing Order No. 3658 did not fail to

follow the Order Remanding Order No. 3368 because the Circuit

Court directed the Board to clarify its treatment of the

consolidated cases, and the Board clearly stated that it treated

the cases as merged.

Therefore, the Circuit Court did not err in affirming

the Board's consideration of the consolidated cases as merged.

-11-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

In this light, we consider the City's argument that the

Circuit Court erred in affirming the Board's conclusion that HFFA

was the prevailing party with respect to attorneys' fees incurred

in connection with the 2014 Case. The City contends that the

Board must make an individual prevailing party determination for

each case. The City points to the HLRB's dismissal of the

specific claims raised in the 2014 Case. However, as discussed

above, the Board permissibly merged the cases based on the

commonality of the issues, as well as the parties, in the cases.

HRS §§ 89-14 (2012)7 and 377-9 (2015)8 give the Board

jurisdiction and the authority to award attorneys' fees in

prohibited practice proceedings under certain circumstances.

Regarding the determination of the prevailing party:

7
HRS § 89-14 provides:
§ 89-14 Prevention of prohibited practices. Any
controversy concerning prohibited practices may be submitted
to the board in the same manner and with the same effect as
provided in section 377-9; provided that the board shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction over such a controversy
except that nothing herein shall preclude (1) the
institution of appropriate proceedings in circuit court
pursuant to section [89-12(c)] or (2) the judicial review of
decisions or orders of the board in prohibited practice
controversies in accordance with section 377-9 and chapter
91. All references in section 377-9 to "labor organization"
shall include employee organization.
8
HRS § 377-9(d) provides in relevant part:
§ 377-9 Prevention of unfair labor practices. . . .
. . . .

(d) . . . Final orders may dismiss the complaint or
require the person complained of to cease and desist from
the unfair labor practices found to have been committed,
suspend the person's rights, immunities, privileges, or
remedies granted or afforded by this chapter for not more
than one year, and require the person to take affirmative
action, including reinstatement of employees and make orders
in favor of employees making them whole, including back pay
with interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

-12-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
A party need not sustain [their] entire claim in order
to be a prevailing party for purposes of entitlement to
costs and attorneys' fees. . . . [W]here a party prevails on
the disputed main issue in a case, even though not to the
extent of [their] original contention, [they] will be deemed
to be the successful party for the purpose of taxing costs
and attorney's fees. The court is required to first
identify the principal issues raised by the pleadings and
proof in a particular case, and then determine, on balance,
which party prevailed on the issues.

Fought & Co., Inc. v. Steel Eng'g & Erection, Inc., 87 Hawai#i

37, 52–53, 951 P.2d 487, 502–03 (1998) (cleaned up); accord

Kaleikini v. Yoshioka, 129 Hawai#i 454, 461, 304 P.3d 252, 259

(2013).

Here, the disputed main issue in the consolidated cases

was whether the City committed a prohibited practice violation

under HRS § 89-13 (2012)9 by interfering with the HFFA's Section

6 I&E meetings. The Board concluded that the City violated HRS

§§ 89-13(a)(1) and (a)(2), but denied the HFFA's HRS §§ 89-

13(a)(5), (7), or (8) claims as well as "all other claims and

allegations brought by the HFFA in this consolidated proceeding."

9
HRS § 89-13 provides in relevant part:

§ 89-13. Prohibited practices; evidence of bad faith.
(a) It shall be a prohibited practice for a public employer
or its designated representative wilfully to:

(1) Interfere, restrain, or coerce any employee in
the exercise of any right guaranteed under this
chapter;
(2) Dominate, interfere, or assist in the formation,
existence, or administration of any employee
organization[.]
. . . .
(5) Refuse to bargain collectively in good faith
with the exclusive representative as required in
section 89-9;
. . . .
(7) Refuse or fail to comply with any provision of
this chapter;

(8) Violate the terms of a collective bargaining
agreement[.]

-13-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Although the HFFA did not prevail on all arguments for relief,

the Board did not clearly err in determining that HFFA prevailed

on the main disputed issue that the City's unilateral

interference with the Section 6 I&E meetings was a prohibited

practice. See Kaleikini, 129 Hawai#i at 461, 304 P.3d at 259

(holding that plaintiff failing to prevail on several counts did

not change the outcome that they prevailed on the disputed main

issue). Therefore, the Circuit Court did not err in concluding

that the Board did not clearly err in finding and concluding that

HFFA was the prevailing party in the consolidated 2014 and 2016

Cases.

For these reasons, the Circuit Court's May 11, 2021

Order Affirming Order No. 3658 is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 20, 2024.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Ernest H. Nomura and Acting Chief Judge
Justin M. Luney,
Deputies Corporation Counsel,
for Respondents-Appellants- /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Appellants. Associate Judge

Herbert R. Takahashi and
Rebecca L. Covert /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
(Takahashi and Covert) Associate Judge
for Complainant-Appellee-
Appellee.

-14-