Background
United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO — a union representing public employees in Hawaii — filed a grievance against the State of Hawaii and the University of Hawaii alleging the University’s failure to restore and expand student housing services adversely affected bargaining unit work. The grievance was designated Grievance #2024-0067 and proceeded as matter 2024-004.
The union appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Special Proceeding No. 1CSP-24-0000891). The appeal was docketed and filing fees were paid, but before the court reached the merits, the parties reached an agreement to end the litigation.
The Court’s Holding
On June 16, 2026, counsel for all parties filed a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice. Pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(b), the court approved the stipulation and dismissed the appeal with prejudice.
The court ordered that each side bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the appeal. No ruling was issued on the underlying merits of the union’s grievance concerning bargaining unit work and student housing services at the University of Hawaii.
Key Takeaways
- The appeal was dismissed with prejudice by mutual agreement of the parties under HRAP Rule 42(b), meaning the union cannot re-litigate the same appellate claims.
- Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs, a standard term in negotiated dismissals.
- The court issued no ruling on the merits of the union’s claim that UH’s failure to restore and expand student housing services impacted bargaining unit work.
Why It Matters
This dismissal resolves the appellate phase of a labor dispute touching on the scope of bargaining unit work at a major public university. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, the union and the University appear to have reached some resolution — or the union chose not to pursue the appeal further — leaving the underlying grievance outcome undisturbed without appellate court guidance on the merits.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder that public-sector labor grievances over work jurisdiction — here, whether the restoration of student housing services encroached on represented employees’ duties — can be resolved at any stage through stipulated dismissal, foreclosing further appellate review on the agreed terms.