AI-assisted research summary: Employees have the right to organize, join or help employee organizations, bargain collectively, engage in lawful concerted activity, and refrain from those activities, with a stated payroll-deduction exception.
Employees shall have the right of self-organization and the right to form, join, or assist any employee organization for the purpose of bargaining collectively through representatives of their own choosing on questions of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and to engage in lawful, concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, free from interference, restraint, or coercion. An employee shall have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities, except for having a payroll deduction equivalent to regular dues remitted to an exclusive representative as provided in section 89-4. [L 1970, c 171, pt of §2; am L 1981, c 180, §3; am L 2000, c 253, §94; am L 2005, c 245, §§4, 8; am L 2007, c 294, §2; am L Sp 2008, c 5, §1; am L 2010, c 106, §2] Attorney General Opinions Unilateral wage increases by employer pending representation elections as constituting interference, restraint, or coercion. Att. Gen. Op. 74-6. Case Notes Strike found unlawful and therefore not a protected activity under this section. 60 H. 361, 590 P.2d 993. Where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that bargaining over pay dates was one of the core subjects of collective bargaining that triggers a violation of article XIII, §2 of the Hawaii constitution, and failed to provide the supreme court with their collective bargaining agreement to support their contention that pay dates are bargainable, and these pay dates were not specifically incorporated into their contract, the Act 355, L 1997 amendment to §78-13 to unilaterally alter the "traditional practice" of being paid on the fifteenth day and last day of the month did not violate their right to collectively bargain pay periods. 111 H. 168, 140 P.3d 401. As §84-13 prohibited the posting of campaign materials on a union bulletin board on the fourth floor of a state building, and nothing in chapter 89 was explicitly contrary to, or inconsistent with, that construction, there was no conflict between §84-13 and this section. 116 H. 73, 170 P.3d 324. Where the posting of campaign materials on a union bulletin board on the fourth floor of a state building was prohibited by §84-13, and was thus not lawful, the postings were not protected under the express language of this section (2006). 116 H. 73, 170 P.3d 324. Where the State, as employer, expressed a "legitimate" concern with campaign materials postings on the union bulletin board on the fourth floor of the department of transportation building, inasmuch as the supervisors at the department believed them to be in violation of §84-13 and an ethics commission bulletin entitled "Campaign Restrictions for State Officials and State Employees", and there was no Hawaii labor relations board finding of "union animus", the removal of campaign materials from the union bulletin board did not infringe on the "mutual aid or protection" clause of this section (2006). 116 H. 73, 170 P.3d 324. The Hawaii labor relations board had jurisdiction to declare whether the factual circumstances presented to it in the union's amended petition would constitute a prohibited practice, where the amended petition sought a declaratory ruling that the employers' service of subpoenas duces tecum interfered with, restrained, and otherwise violated the employees' rights under this section, and therefore constituted prohibited practices pursuant to §89-13(a)(1). 131 H. 142 (App.), 315 P.3d 768 (2013).