*
* * NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * *
NO. 26168
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
Civ. No. 03-1-0546
UNITED PUBLIC
WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO,
Complainant
Appellant-Appellee,
vs.
KENNETH A.
SHIMIZU, Deputy Director, Department of
Environmental
Services, City and County of Honolulu;
ERIC
TAKAMURA, Director, Department of Environmental
Services,
City and County of Honolulu; KENNETH
NAKAMATSU,
Director, Department of Human Resources,
City and
County of Honolulu; and MUFI HANNEMAN,
Mayor, City
and County of Honolulu, (1)
Respondents
Appellees-Appellants,
and
HAWAII LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, BRIAN K. NAKAMURA,
Chairperson;
CHESTER C. KUNITAKE, Board Member; and
KATHLEEN
RACUYA-MARKRICH, Board Member, Appellees-Appellees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civ. No. 03-1-0552
UNITED PUBLIC
WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO,
Complainant
Appellant-Appellee,
vs.
KENNETH A.
SHIMIZU, Deputy Director, Department of
Environmental
Services, City and County of Honolulu;
ERIC
TAKAMURA, Director, Department of Environmental
Services,
City and County of Honolulu; KENNETH
NAKAMATSU,
Director, Department of Human Resources,
City and
County of Honolulu; and MUFI HANNEMAN,
Mayor, City
and County of Honolulu, (2)
Respondents
Appellees-Appellants,
and
HAWAII LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, BRIAN K. NAKAMURA,
Chairperson;
CHESTER C. KUNITAKE, Board Member; and
KATHLEEN
RACUYA-MARKRICH, Board Member, Appellees-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NOS.
03-1-0546 & 03-1-0552)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER AND
ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR RETENTION OF ORAL ARGUMENT
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Appellants Kenneth A. Shimizu, Deputy Director, Department of
Environmental
Services, City and County of Honolulu; Eric Takamura, Director,
Department of
Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu; Kenneth Nakamatsu,
Director,
Department of Human Services, City and County of Honolulu; and Mufi
Hanneman,
Mayor, City and County of Honolulu [hereinafter, collectively, the
City] appeals
from the September 22, 2003 judgment of the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit,
the Honorable Sabrina S. McKenna presiding, reversing in part and
affirming in
part Decision No. 440 of the Hawai`i Labor Relations Board
[hereinafter, HLRB or
the Board]. On appeal, the City argues that the circuit court erred in:
(1)
finding that Decision No. 440 ruled that the City had committed a
prohibited
practice; (2) overturning or otherwise modifying the HLRB's findings of
fact
regarding evidence of frustration of purpose; and (3) ruling that the
frustration
of purpose doctrine applied by the HLRB was erroneous and contrary to
the manifest
purpose of Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 89. Additionally,
after briefing
was complete in the instant case, appellee United Public Workers,
AFSCME, Local
646, AFL-CIO [hereinafter, UPW or the Union] moved for retention of
oral argument
in the instant case. Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the
issues raised
and the arguments presented we hold as follows:
Notwithstanding
the circuit court's ruling that the City was bound to "restore
collection services for the city which had been privatized and to
expand services
to businesses, condominiums, and churches and compete with private
haulers to
contract services for military bases and public schools," the
unchallenged
language of Decision No. 440 bound the City to the same contractual
obligations
when this court reversed the HLRB's prior decision in United Public Workers,
AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO, v. Hanneman, 106 Hawai`i 359,
362-63, 105 P.3d 236,
239-40 (2005). Thus, in the instant case, "[the] result will not be
affected by
the question[s] . . . raised on this appeal, whichever way
[they are] decided. In
this situation, any consideration of the question will be academic. A
question
which has become academic is moot." In re Kuwaye Bros., Inc.,
50 Haw. 172, 174,
435 P.2d 21, 22-23 (1965); see
also Ford Motor Co. v. Nat'l Labor
Relations Bd.,
305 U.S. 364, 375 (1939) ("It is elementary that the court is not bound
to
determine questions which have become academic."). Therefore, this
court lacks
jurisdiction to decide the merits of the instant case. Wong v. Bd. of Regents,
Univ. of Hawai`i, 62 Haw. 391, 394-95, 616 P.2d 201, 203-04
(1980).
UPW's arguments
for retention of oral argument are based upon its perception of
the complexity of and public interest in the issues raised in the
instant appeal. Because this court lacks jurisdiction to address such
issues, UPW's arguments are
inapposite. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that UPW's motion to retain oral argument is denied, and the
instant appeal is dismissed.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai`i, April 4, 2005.
On the briefs:
Herbert R.
Takahashi (of
Takahashi, Masui, Vasconcellos
& Covert), for appellant
appellee-appellee
Seth R. Harris and
Paul T. Tsukiyama,
Deputies Corporation Counsel,
for respondents appellees-
appellants
1. Pursuant to
Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 43(c) (2004), Kenneth A.
Shimizu, Eric Takamura, Kenneth
Nakamatsu, and Mufi Hanneman were substituted as parties to the instant
appeal.
2. See supra note 1.