Judge rules in favor of teachers who weren’t properly credited for prior teaching

A​ state judge’s decision Tuesday to affirm a recent decision by the Hawaiʻi Labor Relations Board (HLRB) could clear the way for more than 2,200 public school teachers to be given service credit for teaching experience outside of Hawaiʻi, possibly raising their pay.

The case began when three teachers who came to the islands after teaching in the continental United States won a case before the HLRB. Late last fall, the labor board ruled that the Hawaiʻi State Department of Education’s (HIDOE) 2022 repricing plan unlawfully excluded three teachers whose six years of previously credited non-HIDOE teaching experience were omitted from the repricing calculation. Known as the compression fix, the repricing boosted the pay for 72% of the teaching workforce by an average of $6,000.

HIDOE appealed the HLRB decision in state Circuit Court after the labor board ruled the three teachers were owed step salary increases and back pay.

Early last summer, HIDOE disclosed that 2,221 teachers were not credited with out-of-state experience during the 2022 compression fix and repricing.

In a hearing Tuesday before Circuit Judge John M. Tonaki, an attorney for HIDOE claimed the teachers lacked standing to bring the case and that the state was not guilty of willful misconduct.

Deputy Attorney General Amy Chan, representing the HLRB, countered that argument, telling the judge the teachers “suffered a financial injury and so they had standing.”

“There is a willful violation if you fail to comply with any provision” of collective bargaining law, she added, because there was “overwhelming evidence” that such a violation happened.

The Hawaiʻi State Teachers Association, which represents more than 13,000 public and charter school teachers across the state, received the court’s permission to intervene in the case this past summer.

During Tuesdayʻs hearing, HSTA attorney Keani Alapa said, “The injury test is met by the complainants. They did not move upwards (on the salary scale) and get the benefits that other teachers got. HLRB ordered a remedy of back pay and moving up on the salary scale.”

In addition, Alapa noted that “HSTA raised their concerns about not including teachers who did not have BU5 (Bargaining Unit 05) experience, and the employer rejected it. So for that reason, it was willful conduct.”

Ruling from the bench after a brief, 18-minute hearing on Tuesday, Tonaki rejected the HIDOE’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the HLRB.

“This court cannot find that the decision made by the HLRB violated the law,” Tonaki said.

“None of the factual findings (by the HLRB) were clearly erroneous,” Tonaki added.

Following Tuesdayʻs ruling, HSTA Executive Director Andrea Eshelman wrote HIDOE officials formally requesting a meeting with them “to discuss the department’s implementation plans and timelines, and to ensure similarly affected employees are provided salary adjustments to reflect prior teaching experience.”

“If HIDOE does not intend to take action for the 2,221 similarly affected employees, please provide a written explanation and the basis for that determination,” Eshelman wrote.

Eshelman also wrote, “…if HIDOE does not provide the requested information or does not indicate its intent to comply with Decision No. 526, HSTA will have no choice but to return to the Hawaiʻi Labor Relations Board to enforce the decision and seek all appropriate remedies.”

At this time, no action is required from HSTA members. The HSTA will continue to update members as developments occur.

Last year, after HIDOE appealed the HLRB decision in this case, the HSTA requested that the department address the hundreds and possibly thousands of educators owed back pay under the labor board ruling.

The HIDOE’s 2022 repricing initiative was authorized under the state’s collective bargaining law [HRS § 89-9(f)(2)], which grants the employer discretion to reprice classes within the bargaining unit without the consent of the union. Because the statute grants the employer the unilateral right to reprice, any attempt to legally challenge the plan could have led the HIDOE to withdraw it altogether, thereby jeopardizing more than $50 million in significant salary adjustments that thousands of teachers ultimately received.

Although the HLRB agreed that the HIDOE did not need to negotiate its repricing plan with HSTA, the labor board found that the department failed to follow the law in carrying it out. HIDOE had not established the mandatory procedures required under HRS § 89-9(f)(2) for periodically reviewing repricing, and based on HIDOE’s own evidence and testimony, it unlawfully excluded teachers whose six years of previously credited non-HIDOE service were ignored in the repricing formula. By excluding these teachers from the single class being repriced, HIDOE violated Hawaiʻi’s collective bargaining law, specifically HRS §§ 89-9(f)(2) and 89-3.