Labor board rejects
part of UPW suitThe union alleges violations
by ACLU in prison guard probe
The state Labor Relations Board has dismissed portions of a prohibited labor practices claim filed against the state by the union representing prison guards at the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility.
But Herb Takahashi, attorney for the United Public Workers, said yesterday's dismissal will not affect the union's ability to proceed to a hearing before the board on its Sept. 4 complaint.
The UPW alleged the American Civil Liberties Union violated labor laws when it investigated the Kailua youth facility and released a report alleging overcrowding, physical abuse and sexual harassment of wards by prison guards without giving the guards an opportunity to refute the accusations.
The union also alleges the state violated its collective-bargaining contract by allowing ACLU access to the facility.
State Attorney General Mark Bennett gave the ACLU permission to conduct the investigation and has since launched his own criminal investigation, resulting in indictments against two prison guards.
Board Chairman Brian Nakamura dismissed claims yesterday that the ACLU's and attorney general's investigations are prohibited by a previous arbitration award, saying it should be up to the courts to decide. The board also dismissed contractual violations claims, saying those are matters it traditionally defers to an arbitrator.
The UPW's claims regarding interference, discrimination and failure to bargain will be allowed to proceed, Nakamura said. No hearing date has been scheduled.
Daniel Morris, deputy attorney general, declined comment.
The board is expected to rule later on the union's request to compel Brent White, former legal director for the ACLU, to reappear before the board to answer questions and produce documents relating to his investigation of the Kailua youth facility.
White has declined to reveal his sources, which the ACLU has said is necessary to protect youth inmates and other confidential informants.
ACLU attorneys have argued that requiring White to answer questions violates public policy concerning the protection of informants. They also argue that disclosure of communications or working papers would violate attorney-client privilege.
