In Shimizu, the supreme court observed that as a result of Hanneman, both the circuit court's decision and "the unchallenged language of [the HLRB's] Decision No. 440 bound the City to the same contractual obligations[.]"
Summary of this case from United Pub. Workers, Afscme, Local 646 v. HoughtonNo. 26168.
April 4, 2005.
Summary dispositional order dismissed.
In Shimizu, the supreme court observed that as a result of Hanneman, both the circuit court's decision and "the unchallenged language of [the HLRB's] Decision No. 440 bound the City to the same contractual obligations[.]"
Summary of this case from United Pub. Workers, Afscme, Local 646 v. HoughtonFull title:UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO v. SHIMIZU
Court:Supreme Court of Hawaii
Date published: Apr 4, 2005
On April 4, 2005, the supreme court issued a summary disposition order dismissing the City’s appeal for lack…
United Pub. Workers, Afscme, Local 646 v. HoughtonOn April 4, 2005, the supreme court issued a summary disposition order dismissing the City's appeal for lack…