The board found the union blameless - then ruled against the employer anyway
Eight university workers just lost a years-long fight against the institution that cut their jobs early - and it came down to their union.
The Hawai'i Intermediate Court of Appeals on September 22 reversed a labor board ruling that had found the University of Hawai'i improperly terminated the workers, ordering the complaints dismissed with prejudice.
The workers held temporary positions in the university's Office of Research Services. Their roles had a set end date of June 30, 2018, but in July 2017 they were told the positions would end six months early.
They grieved the early termination through the Hawaii Government Employees Association under their collective bargaining agreement. The union took it through the process but declined to arbitrate.
That decision set everything else in motion.
In September 2018, the workers filed prohibited practice complaints with the Hawai'i Labor Relations Board against HGEA, alleging it breached its duty of fair representation. The following month, each worker added the university as a respondent, claiming it breached the law by allowing a fellow bargaining unit member to handle the termination process, and that the early terminations violated the CBA.
It took the HLRB nearly five years. In Decision No. 517, filed August 10, 2023, the board found HGEA had not breached its duty. But it ruled the university's terminations were improper anyway - because of how it used the bargaining unit member in the process.
The university appealed. The circuit court affirmed. The university appealed again.
On secondary appeal, the intermediate court applied what is known as a "hybrid action" framework - where an employee's claim against an employer for breaching a CBA and the claim against a union for breaching its duty of fair representation are legally inseparable. Under Hawai'i precedent, an employee can still pursue the employer, but only if they first prove the union breached its duty.
The board itself had already decided the union did nothing wrong. No party challenged that finding. That should have been the end of the road for the university claims too.
By pressing on to rule against the employer anyway, the board committed an error of law, the court held. It vacated Decision No. 517 and sent the case back with instructions to dismiss the complaints with prejudice.
For HR teams in unionized workplaces, the practical point is clear: in hybrid grievance disputes, the union claim and the employer claim rise or fall together.
