October 19, 2012
HAWAII STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; JAMES B. NICHOLSON, CHAIRPERSON OF THE HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; AND ROCK B. LEY, MEMBER OF THE HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (2012-017), AND NEIL ABERCROMBIE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAII; KALBERT YOUNG, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND FINANCE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII; NEIL DIETZ, CHIEF NEGOTIATOR OF THE OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OF THE STATE OF HAWAII; KATHRYN MATAYOSHI, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII; DONALD G. HORNER, CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII; JAMES D. WILLIAMS, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII, AND UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII PROFESSIONAL ASSEMBLY
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000825 19-OCT-2012 10:30 AM
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. CE-05-781)
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Pollack, JJ., and Circuit Judge Chang, in place of McKenna, J., recused)
On September 28, 2012, petitioner Hawaii State Teachers Association filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the Hawaii Labor Relations Board to issue an order or decision on its prohibited practice complaint and motion for interlocutory relief in Case No. CE-05-781.
A writ of mandamus and/or prohibition will not issue unless a petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of other means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999). Mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual's claim is clear and certain, the official's duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available. In re Disciplinary Bd., 94 Hawai#i 363, 368, 371, 984 P.2d 688, 693, 695 (1999) (citations omitted). Upon consideration of the petition, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that with respect to the HSTA's request for a decision on the prohibited practice complaint, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied at this time without prejudice in light of the extended duration of the evidentiary proceeding and the voluminous record.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that with respect to the HSTA's request for a decision on the motion for interlocutory relief, the respondents shall file an answer to the petition within twenty days from the date of this order.
IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that the appellate clerk shall serve a copy of this order upon the respondents, as required by HRAP Rule 21(c).
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Gary W.B. Chang
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.