*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
NO. 23491
HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, State of Hawai`i, Appellee-Appellee
and
LINDA LINGLE (1), Governor, State of Hawai`i,
Appellee-Appellee
Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that this court may address Poe's arguments despite partial noncompliance with Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4). See Housing Finance and Development Corp. v. Ferguson, 91 Hawai`i 81, 979 P.2d 1107 (1999). This court further holds that the circuit court did not err by affirming HLRB's decision because: (1) Poe failed to establish that he attempted to exhaust all contractual remedies or that requesting the Union to proceed with step four was futile, see Poe v. Hawai`i Labor Relations Bd., 97 Hawai`i 528, 40 P.2d 930 (2002); Hokama v. University of Hawai`i, 92 Hawai`i 268, 990 P.2d 1150 (1999); Santos v. State, 64 Haw. 648, 646 P.2d 962 (1982); (2) HLRB did not alter the express terms of the grievance procedure by requiring Poe to attempt to exhaust all contractual remedies, including step four; (3) Hawai`i courts may use parallel federal case law as guidance, see Hokama, 92 Hawai`i at 272 n.5, 990 P.2d at 1154 n.5; see generally Doe v. Parents No. 1 v. State, Dept. of Educ., 100 Hawai`i 34, 58 P.3d 545 (2002); Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, 96 Hawai`i 408, 32 P.3d 52 (2001); and (4) HLRB's conclusion that Employer's untimely response was de minimus was not clearly erroneous, inasmuch as Poe failed to show that he was prejudiced or suffered any damages by Employer's breach. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the appeal is taken is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, February 26, 2004.
On the briefs:
Lewis W. Poe, Kathleen N.A. Watanabe and
Sarah R. Hirakami, Deputy
Attorneys General, for
appellee-appellee State of
Hawai`i
1.
The party has been substituted pursuant to HRAP
Rule 43(c)(1).