Poe v. Hawaii Labor Relations Board
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
*** NO T FO R PUBLICATION *** NO. 23535 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I LEWIS W. POE, Appellant-Appellant vs. HAWAI#I LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, State of Hawai#i, Appellee-Appellee and LINDA LINGLE1, Governor, State of Hawai#i, Appellee-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 99-4595) (By: SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.) Appellant-appellant Lewis W. Poe appeals from the May 22, 2000 judgment of the circuit court of the first circuit, the Honorable Eden Elizabeth Hifo presiding, finding in favor of Hawai#i Labor Relations Board (HLRB), and against Poe. appeal, Poe argues that: On (1) he is bound by the terms of the existing grievance procedure to exhaust steps one through three; (2) he did not fail to exhaust all available contractual remedies; and (3) HLRB illegally altered the express terms of the grievance procedure. In his reply brief, Poe further argues that federal law does not apply in the instant case. 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: 1 The party has been substituted pursuant to HRAP Rule 43(c)(1). (1) *** NO T FO R PUBLICATION *** the circuit court did not err by affirming HLRB s decision because 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; and (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). 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, appellant-appellant pro se Kathleen N.A. Watanabe and Sarah R. Hirakami, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellee-appellee State of Hawai#i Valri Lei Kunimoto, for appellee-appellee Hawai#i Labor Relations Board 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
