Background
The University of Hawaii Professional Assembly grieved the University of Hawaii Board of Regents’ refusal to provide legal representation to Sarita Rai, a faculty member and director of the Study Abroad Center. The Hawaii Ethics Commission investigated and then charged Rai over her use of proceeds from International Student Identity Card sales for Study Abroad Center meals, alcohol, gifts, and holiday events. Rai resolved the ethics charge by admitting a fair-treatment-law violation and paying a $5,500 administrative penalty.
The parties’ collective bargaining agreement required the University to provide counsel in specified circumstances when a faculty member’s actions occurred in the course of employment and within the scope of duties. An arbitrator concluded that the provision covered the Ethics Commission matters, that Rai’s conduct met the contractual course-and-scope requirement, and that the University breached the agreement by denying counsel. The arbitrator awarded UHPA the fees it spent representing Rai. The circuit court confirmed the award and denied the University’s motion to vacate.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by treating terms such as “court,” “sued,” and “deposition” in the legal-representation clause as ambiguous and consulting dictionary definitions to interpret them. The arbitrator was also authorized to interpret and apply the clause’s requirement that the faculty member’s conduct be within the course of employment and scope of duties.
The court further held that the University did not identify an explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy barring a public employer from using public funds to defend an employee in an Ethics Commission matter arising within the employee’s course and scope of employment. Nor did the award clearly violate any such policy. Rai’s eventual admission of an ethics violation did not defeat the negotiated right to representation, which was not conditioned on the merits of the accusation or defense.
Key Takeaways
- Courts give arbitration awards exceptionally limited review and do not revisit alleged legal or factual errors that fall within the arbitrator’s contractual interpretive authority.
- An arbitrator may use dictionary definitions to resolve reasonably disputed, undefined terms in a collective bargaining agreement.
- The public-policy exception requires a specific, dominant policy and a clear conflict between that policy and the award; generalized ethics concerns are insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the deference Hawaii courts give to labor arbitration, including an arbitrator’s interpretation of ambiguous contractual language. Public employers seeking to resist an award on public-policy grounds must identify a concrete legal prohibition, not merely invoke broad principles of government ethics or taxpayer accountability.