NORMAN K. KATO II
1717 Hoe Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96819
Tel. No.: (808) 847-4676

EFiled: Jan 11 2016 04:17PM HAST
Transaction ID 58412246
Case No. CE-12-875

(5818)

Attorney for Complainant
STATE OF HAWAII ORGANIZATION
OF POLICE OFFICERS
STATE OF HAWAII
HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

STATE OF HAWAII ORGANIZATION )
)
OF POLICE OFFICERS (SHOPO),
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
BERNARD P. CARVALHO, JR., Mayor )
of the County of Kauai, State of Hawaii;
)
DARRYL D. PERRY, Chief of Police of
)
the Kauai Police Department; COUNTY OF )
KAUAI, a political subdivision of the State )
of Hawaii.
)
)
Respondents.
)
)
)

HLRB NO.:________________________

PROHIBITED PRACTICE COMPLAINT

PROHIBITED PRACTICE COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Complainant STATE OF HAWAII ORGANIZATION OF POLICE
OFFICERS (“SHOPO” or “Union”), by and through its undersigned counsel, and for a
complaint against the above-identified Respondents, alleges and avers as follows:
1.

At all times relevant herein, Complainant SHOPO was and is an employee

organization as defined under Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) §89-2.

ATTACHMENT “B”

 2.

At all times relevant herein, Complainant SHOPO was and is the certified

exclusive representative and collective bargaining agent for all police officers within the
State of Hawaii under bargaining unit 12 (“BU-12”), as that bargaining unit is defined
under HRS §§ 89-2 and 89-6(a)(12), and has been so recognized and certified by the
Hawaii Labor Relations Board (“HLRB” or “Board”), and its predecessor the Hawaii
Public Employment Relations Board pursuant to HRS §89-8.
3.

At all times relevant herein, Respondent Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr. (“Mayor

Carvalho” or “Employer”) was and is the duly elected Mayor of the County of Kauai, State
of Hawaii, and an employer or public employer as defined under HRS §89-2, and under the
collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) covering the period July 1, 2011 through June
30, 2017.
4.

At all times relevant herein, Respondent Darryl D. Perry (“Chief Perry” or

“Employer”) was and is the duly appointed Chief of Police for the Kauai Police
Department (“KPD”), County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, and an employer or public
employer as defined under HRS §89-2 and under the applicable CBA.
5.

Respondent County of Kauai (“Employer”) is a political subdivision of the

State of Hawaii, and an employer or public employer as defined under HRS §89-2, and
under the applicable CBA.
6.

The HLRB under HRS Chapter 89 has exclusive original jurisdiction over

matters and claims relating to prohibited practices and a statutory duty to resolve
controversies under Chapter 89, to conduct proceedings on complaints of prohibited
practices and to take such action as it deems necessary and proper.

2

 7.

On or about July 14, 1972, the HLRB certified that SHOPO was designated

and selected by a majority of police officers as their exclusive bargaining representative f or
the purpose of bargaining collectively on questions of wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment.
8.

Under HRS §89-13, it is a prohibited practice for a public employer willfully

to violate the terms of a CBA.
9.

Under HRS §89-13, it is a prohibited practice for a public employer willfully

to refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with an exclusive representative as required
under HRS §89-9.
10.

Under HRS §89-1, the Hawaii Legislature declared that “joint decision-

making is the modern way of administering government.”
11.

Under HRS §89-1, the Hawaii Legislature further declared that it is the

“public policy of the State to promote harmonious and cooperative relations between
government and its employees.”
12.

The Hawaii Legislature has established that it is the policy of the State of

Hawaii that public employers are required to “negotiate with and enter into written
agreements with exclusive representatives on matters” relating to “conditions of
employment.” HRS §89-1(a)(2)(emphasis added).
13.

Under HRS §89-9, Chief Perry, Mayor Carvalho and the County of Kauai at

relevant times herein, were required under law to “negotiate in good faith” with SHOPO
with respect to conditions of employment and any agreements reached were requi red to be
embodied in a written agreement.

3

 14.

Under HRS §89-10, if a supplemental agreement is reached between the

public employer and exclusive representative relating to conditions of employment it is
required to be reduced to writing and executed by both parties.
15.

The applicable and relevant CBA in this matter covers the period July 1,

2011 through June 30, 2017, and provides in its entirety the binding and applicable wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit 12 employees.
16.

Under Article 1.A. (Recognition) of the CBA, the Employer recognized

SHOPO as the exclusive representative for public employees in the police officers unit,
both supervisory and non-supervisory, except for officers and employees who are excluded
or may be excluded from the bargaining unit by law and/or the HLRB.
17.

Under Article 1.D. (Mutual Consent) of the CBA, the Employer agreed that

“No changes in wages, hours or other conditions of work contained herein may be made
except by mutual consent.”
18.

Article 10.C. (Joint Labor-Management Workshops) of the CBA:
To facilitate and enhance communication between management
and the Union, a joint meeting shall be held no more than four
(4) times a year to discuss issues of mutual concern.
Attendance shall include but not be limited to the chiefs and/or
deputy chiefs of police, the directors of personnel and/or civil
service of the four counties and the Union’s negotiating
committee. The parties shall mutually agree to an agenda for
each meeting at least two (2) weeks before the meeting is held.
Representatives from the Employer and the Union shall
develop the agenda for each meeting at least two (2) weeks
before the meeting is held.

19.

Article 35.A. (Prior Rights – Rights, Benefits and Perquisites) of the CBA,

the Employer agreed that nothing in the CBA “shall be construed as abridging, amending
or waiving any rights, benefits or perquisites presently covered by statutes, rules or

4

 regulations of each jurisdiction that the employees have enjoyed heretofore except as
specifically superseded by the terms of this Agreement.”
20.

Under Article 53 (Entirety Clause) of the CBA, the Employer and SHOPO

agreed that the terms and provisions herein contained constituted the entire agreement
between the parties and superseded all previous communications, representations or
agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject
matter therein. Article 53 further provides that the Employer and SHOPO agreed that all
negotiable items had been discussed during the negotiations leading to the CBA and,
agreed that “negotiations will not be reopened on any item, whether contained herein or
not, during the life of this Agreement except by written mutual consent.” (emphasis
added).
21.

In a news article in The Garden Island, entitled, “Police eye ‘cop cameras’”,

posted August 23, 2014, Chief Perry announced that he wanted to implement the use of
body-worn cameras by KPD and SHOPO’s members.
22.

Chief Perry’s plan was to require SHOPO’s members to wear cameras on

their persons, during their entire work shift.
23.

It was Chief Perry’s further plan to require SHOPO’s members to wear body-

worn cameras to record their activities and the activities of the public, and to adopt a policy
that would govern and regulate the use of body-worn cameras during work hours.
24.

Chief Perry also made it known that if a SHOPO member violated the body-

worn camera policy to be adopted, it could subject the member to discipline by the
Employer, as he was quoted thusly: “Perry said the system could track conduct and would
‘red flag’ officers of concern.”

5

 25.

Prior to Chief Perry’s announcement, the use of body-worn cameras was not

previously a condition of work for SHOPO’s members employed with KP D.
26.

After Chief Perry announced his plan to have his police officers use body-

worn cameras, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) of Hawaii publicly stated
that it had “very grave privacy concerns” relating to a police officer’s use of a body-worn
camera during his/her entire work shift, and also stated that “clear and consistent policies”
were required to address what it had characterized as “very serious privacy concerns.”
27.

The ACLU of Hawaii also publicly stated that the ACLU was a strong

supporter of SHOPO and wanted to make sure that whatever policy was eventually adopted
and implemented, that the policy protected the privacy of public citizens and individual
officers.
28.

From the outset, SHOPO supported and was in favor of body-worn cameras,

but similar to the ACLU of Hawaii, it had concerns about violating the public’s privacy
rights with the use of the cameras and the appropriateness of recording certain situations,
such as the recording of a minor, a sex assault or abuse victim, recording in hospitals, sex
abuse treatment centers or other similar health care facilities, a witness who feared
retaliation or a witness who did not wish to be recorded for other personal reasons.
Because this was a new working condition, SHOPO did not want a policy implemented that
was unconstitutional or would require an officer to infringe on an individual’s privacy
rights which could in turn subject an officer to a possible lawsuit.
29.

On January 7, 2015, the Public Safety Committee of the Kauai County

Council held a meeting during which time Chief Perry stated publicly on the record that
before KPD could implement a Body-Worn Camera System (BWCS) Policy, KPD had to

6

 work with SHOPO through Labor-Management negotiations, and that the draft BWCS
policy needed to be revisited and revised.
30.

SHOPO officials attending the same council meeting explained that the

implementation of a body-worn camera policy was a change in working conditions, and,
therefore was a subject of mandatory bargaining that had to be “negotiated” at a Joint
Labor-Management meeting that had already been scheduled as required under the CBA.
31.

Neither Chief Perry nor any other Employer representative present at the

council meeting disputed the testimony and position set forth by SHOPO that this proposed
change in work conditions required the mutual consent of both parties, i.e., the Employer
and SHOPO, under CBA Article 1.D.
32.

On January 20-22, 2015, SHOPO and the Employer participated in a Joint

Labor-Management meeting held in Honolulu at the Neal Blaisdell Center. The County of
Kauai placed body-worn cameras on the meeting agenda as a discussion. SHOPO officials
who were present during that meeting distinctly recall that KPD was going to continue
discussing this matter at the next scheduled Joint Labor-Management meeting.
33.

On Friday, July 17, 2015, at approximately 5:06 p.m., Chief Perry had an

email sent to SHOPO Kauai Business Agent Stanton Koizumi (“Mr. Koizumi”) stating that
pursuant to CBA Article 14, Changes in Departmental Rules, KPD was submitting for his
review, GO 14-04 Body Worn Camera. The email went on to state that if SHOPO did not
respond in writing within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the notice, KPD
would assume SHOPO did not wish to meet and confer on the proposals and would
unilaterally implement them accordingly.

7

 34.

On Monday, July 20, 2015, at approximately 7:21 a.m., Mr. Koizumi

informed Chief Perry that SHOPO would indeed like to discuss GO 14-04, but that the
issue was governed under CBA Article 1 as a change in working conditions that required
mutual consent of both parties rather than a mere conferral item. Mr. Koizumi further
informed Chief Perry that SHOPO’s State Board of Directors would also review the
proposed policy, and it would be put on the agenda at the upcoming Labor-Management
meeting to be scheduled in the near future.
35.

In a letter dated August 4, 2015, Chief Perry informed SHOPO that it was his

position that a body-worn camera policy did not require SHOPO’s consent or agreement
under CBA Article 1.D., as SHOPO had stated its position in writing as far back as
September 19, 2014, in a letter wherein SHOPO stated that the body-worn camera
constituted a condition of work and could only be implemented by mutual consent between
the parties. Instead, Chief Perry stated that the Employer’s proposed body-worn camera
policy only required the Employer to provide written notice to SHOPO as a “Meet and
Confer” issue under CBA Article 14. Chief Perry went on to claim that on July 9, 2015, an
official departmental letter authored by Executive Chief of Police Michael M. Contrades
(“Chief Contrades”) was sent to Mr. Koizumi, expressing KPD’s intent to implement the
BWCS policy. Further, implicit in Chief Contrades’ letter was that “If SHOPO does not
respond within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of this email [ Chief Perry
made reference to an “official departmental letter” authored by Chief Contrades, but Chief
Contrades’ letter makes reference to an “email,” which is confusing.], the Kauai Police
Department will assume the union does not wish to meet and confer on the proposals and
will implement them accordingly.” Chief Perry concluded his letter by stating, “KPD has

8

 not received a timely response from SHOPO with regard to this matter, and therefore,
effective August 21, 2015, the Kauai Police Department’s Body-Worn Camera Policy 1404 shall be implemented.”
36.

In a letter to Chief Perry, dated August 17, 2015, SHOPO informed Chief

Perry that SHOPO had not received Chief Contrades’ July 9, 2015 letter. SHOPO further
advised Chief Perry that any attempt to implement the BWCS policy without SHOPO’s
mutual consent would be not only a violation of the CBA, but also a prohibited practice,
pursuant to HRS §89-13.
SHOPO reminded Chief Perry of the public statements he made at the January 7,
2015 Kauai County council meeting, including his statements that there was another step
before the BWCS policy could be implemented and that KPD would have to meet with
SHOPO and negotiate over the issue. SHOPO always remained open to discussing and
negotiating a policy with Chief Perry that not only addressed its members’ concerns, but
more importantly a sound policy that protected the public’s privacy interests.
37.

In a letter from Chief Perry to SHOPO dated August 19, 2015, Chief Perry

stated that he unilaterally implement his BWCS policy on August 21, 2015.
38.

In a letter, dated August 19, 2015, SHOPO informed Chief Perry that

unilaterally implementing his BWCS policy without SHOPO’s consent would be not only
an act of bad faith by the Employer, but more significantly a violation of the CBA and the
engagement in a prohibited practice.
39.

About August 2015, SHOPO provided KPD with a list of amendments to

Version 8 of the BWCS policy.

9

 40.

In early October of 2015, SHOPO became aware of a two-page KPD

document entitled: “Kauai Police Department, General Staff Meeting, September 30,
2015.” Contained on the first page of this document under a bullet-point was the following
information, “Tentative training dates for Body-Worn Camera System (BCWS)[sic] is
October 12-15”.
41.

In a letter to Chief Perry, dated October 26, 2015, SHOPO again advised the

Chief that any attempt to implement the BWCS policy without SHOPO’s mutual consent
would be a violation of the CBA that the Employer was contractually bound to follow and
would be a prohibited practice.
SHOPO, in an attempt to initiate and engage Chief Perry in good faith negotiations
over the issue, informed Chief Perry that should he wish to proceed with the
implementation of a new BWCS policy, he should provide SHOPO with proposed dates,
times, and locations for a Labor-Management meeting, so that the parties could meet and
negotiate this new condition of work that was a mandatory subject matter for bargaining.
42.

On November 2, 2015, the Employer sent an email to SHOPO stating that

pursuant to CBA Article 14, Changes in Departmental Rules, KPD was submitting for
SHOPO’s review, its proposed body-worn camera policy. The Employer further stated that
if SHOPO did not respond in writing within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt
of the notice, KPD would assume SHOPO did not wish to meet and confer on the proposals
and would implement them accordingly.
43.

On November 2, 2015, Chief Contrades sent an email to SHOPO stating, “As

discussed, attached are the changes to the body camera policy with the track changes
displayed. A copy is being sent via certified mail as well. . . . Thank you all for your work

10

 on this.” [Presumably, this was in reference to the list of amendments to Version 8 the
BWCS policy that SHOPO provided to KPD about August of 2015.] Attached to the email
was a PDF of Version 11 of KPD GO 14-04 Body-Worn Camera System (BWCS) Policy,
which consisted of fourteen (14) pages.
44.

On November 6, 2015, SHOPO emailed Chief Perry’s office informing him

that the proposed body-worn camera policy had been forwarded to SHOPO’s Honolulu
office, and that SHOPO still considered the proposed policy to be an Article 1 iss ue that
required both parties’ mutual consent.
45.

On November 9, 2015, Chief Perry sent an email to various county officials

explaining how hard KPD had been working on the Body-Worn Camera program for over
two years, and how SHOPO, by advising him that the BWCS program required “mutual
consent” under the CBA and that failure to comply with the CBA would result in the filing
of a Prohibited Practice Complaint, was attempting to delay the program as long as
possible, and that no matter what KPD does, SHOPO will not agree to the BWCS program.
Chief Perry concluded his email by saying, “Please share this information with
others as you see fit.” However, Chief Perry did not see fit to share this email with
SHOPO.
46.

Chief Perry neglected to state in his email that SHOPO had in fact been a

strong supporter and in favor of the body-worn cameras, and other than trying to negotiate
a mutually acceptable policy in accordance with the CBA, SHOPO had done nothing to
delay the program. Rather it was Chief Perry who by his own tactics was delaying the
implementation of the program.

11

 47.

On November 12, 2015, SHOPO sent a letter to Chief Perry highlighting the

following points:


SHOPO made it clear to Chief Perry that it had always been in favor of BWCs,
which was evidenced by: 1) the simple fact that SHOPO had met with Chief
Contrades in September of 2014, and agreed to have KPD conduct a 30-day pilot
program of BWCs, which began at the ending of September 2014, with the express
understanding that the actual implementation of a BWC policy was subject to
mandatory bargaining during a Labor-Management meeting; and 2) SHOPO filed
written testimony with the 2015 Legislature for House Bill 365 in support of
funding for body cameras and listing necessary steps before implementation.



SHOPO reiterated that its position that BWCs were a subject of mandatory
bargaining had always been steadfast and unwavering.



Chief Perry was reminded that he was also present when SHOPO testified at the
same council meeting that BWCs were a working condition under the CBA that
needed to be negotiated through a Labor Management meeting. (A DVD copy of
the video recording of this meeting was enclosed with the November 12, 2015 letter
to Chief Perry for his review.) Moreover, Chief Perry was reminded, again, that the
County of Kauai had placed “Body Camera” on the agenda during the Joint Labor Management meeting held in January, 2015 at the Neal Blaisdell Center.



A review of SHOPO’s records revealed that KPD only transmitted to SHOPO
versions 1, 8, and 11 of BWC Policy 14-04. The fact that KPD never transmitted to
SHOPO eight (8) out of the eleven (11) versions of BWC Policy 14-04 was
disheartening – especially in light of the fact that Chief Perry was giving the public,

12

 elected officials, and our members the false impression that “for over 2 years,”
Chief Perry and KPD “have been diligently working on the program by . . . more
importantly having SHOPO’s input, suggestions, and recommendations imbedded in
our policy to alleviate their concerns.” In short, Chief Perry’s email of November 9,
2015, misled all recipients to believe SHOPO had asked for amendments ten times
to BWC Policy 14-04, when SHOPO only made proposed amendments twice, up to
the point of receiving Version 11 of BWC Policy 14-04.


In spite of Chief Perry’s misrepresentations and conduct, SHOPO stated that it was,
and always had been, willing, if not eager, to sit down with him in a Labor
Management meeting to resolve any remaining concerns SHOPO had about BWC
Policy 14-04, so that it could be implemented as soon as practicable. Further, it was
pointed out that Chief Perry did not respond to SHOPO’s letter, dated October 26,
2015, wherein SHOPO asked him to “please provide us with proposed dates, times,
and locations for a Labor-Management Meeting, so that the parties can negotiate
this subject of mandatory bargaining.” Chief Perry was reminded that instead of
proposing meeting dates, he chose to air this matter in public on television, which
was counterproductive to bargaining in good faith.



Since Chief Perry was projecting a sense of urgency about implementing BWC
Policy 14-04, SHOPO invited him to meet in a Labor-Management meeting on
November 23, 24, or 25, 2015. SHOPO told Chief Perry that its negotiation team
would gladly travel to Kauai to facilitate the negotiation of BWC Policy 14-04.

13

 

Finally, SHOPO reiterated that SHOPO considered this matter to be governed by
Article 1.D., Mutual Consent, and, as such, was a subject of mandatory bargaining,
which required the mutual consent of the parties.
48.

On November 16, 2015, Chief Perry sent an email to SHOPO stating that

KPD was willing to meet and further discuss this issue, but still believed that this issue was
subject to a “meet and confer” discussion only rather than a “mutual consent” agreement.
49.

In a letter to SHOPO, dated November 16, 2015, Chief Perry offered several

dates to meet and confer on the policy and implementation of the Body Worn Camera
program with SHOPO. Unfortunately, the dates offered were only 2-4 days away.
50.

In a letter to Chief Perry, dated November 17, 2015, SHOPO advised that the

offered dates provided inadequate lead time and were therefore not practical, or feasible for
SHOPO. SHOPO had also previously scheduled a State Board meeting on one of the
offered dates, and required more than a mere two-day notice, not only to coordinate the
negotiation team’s travel arrangements, but also to request prior approval from the
respective Counties for official time off from work for individual members of the
negotiation team. As a reasonable compromise, SHOPO offered to meet with Chief Perry
at his offices on November 25, 2015, or on any day during the week of November 30, 2015
through December 3, 2015.
51.

On November 25, 2015, a meeting between the parties took place at KPD to

discuss the BWC policy. Among those present at the meeting representing the Employer
were the following individuals: Chief Perry, Chief Contrades, and Captain Bryson Ponce
(“Captain Ponce”). SHOPO was represented by the following individuals: Executive
Director Russell Akana (“Mr. Akana”), SHOPO Treasurer James “Kimo” Smith (“Mr.

14

 Smith”), General Counsel Barbara Wong (“Ms. Wong”), SHOPO Kauai Chapter Chair
Jesse Guirao (“Mr. Guirao”), and SHOPO Kauai Chapter Vice Chair Aaron Bandmann
(“Mr. Bandmann”). At the beginning of this meeting, SHOPO reiterated its position that
BWCs were subject to mandatory bargaining and then proposed numerous amendments to
Version 11 of KPD GO 14-04 BWCS.
52.

On November 25, 2015, Chief Perry sent a mass email to numerous

recipients, including SHOPO, wherein he stated, “I just wanted to thank SHOPO for
meeting with us today with regard to the Body-Worn Camera program. The discussions
were very productive and hopefully we will be able to come to a joint agreement to
implement the program in the not too distant future.” (emphasis added).
53.

On November 27, 2015, Chief Contrades emailed SHOPO and stated, in

pertinent part, the following: “Attached is version 12 of the BWCS policy. All the changes
that were suggested were made (please double check for accuracy), with the exception of
VII.C.6.d.”
54.

On November 30, 2015, SHOPO sent an email to Chief Contrades asking

about the language contained in two (2) separate provisions of Version 12 of KPD GO 1404 BWCS.
55.

On November 30, 2015, Chief Contrades emailed SHOPO and stated, in

pertinent part, the following: “Attached is the revised policy, version 13. Both were
oversights and have been corrected (see response below). Thank you very much for
catching it.” Chief Contrades had attached Version 13 of KPD GO 14-04 BWCS, which
indicated a revised date of November 30, 2015.

15

 56.

On December 9, 2015, Chief Perry emailed SHOPO and stated, in pertinent

part, “Since our very successful meeting on Nov. 25 th Executive Chief Contrades had made
several modifications to our BWC policy based on recommendations suggested by your
General Counsel Barbara Wong. I understand that a decision was to be made by SHOPO’s
executive board with regard to KPD moving forward. . . . Could you please let me know of
SHOPO’s position by the end of the day?”
57.

On December 9, 2015, SHOPO hand-delivered to Chief Perry SHOPO’s

proposed Supplemental Agreement (“SUP”) Regarding Body-Worn Camera System for his
review and signature, since the Employer and SHOPO had come to an agreement on
Version 13 of KPD GO 14-04 BWCS.
58.

On December 9, 2015, Chief Perry emailed SHOPO and acknowledged

receipt of SHOPO’s proposed SUP. He the stated: “After further review and assessment,
the language in the SUP suggest that KPD agrees that the BWC program falls under the
purview of ‘Mutual Consent’ which is not the case. Because we would like to continue this
process, but would want to alleviate any confusion, I would be amendable to approving the
SUP with the removal of the following language[.]” Chief Perry then made reference to
two provisions in the SUP, which he wanted removed as a condition precedent to his
approval of the SUP.
59.

On December 9, 2015, SHOPO removed the two provisions in the SUP that

Chief Perry found objectionable and provided him with the amended SUP for his approval.
60.

Surprisingly, on December 10, 2015, in a letter to SHOPO, Chief Perry

refused to sign the SUP as amended and presented, and refused to acknowledge the policy
was a meet and consent issue. Chief Perry made clear that the Employer was refusing to

16

 recognize or consider the camera issue as a negotiable meet and mutual consent issue, in
complete contradiction to the representations he had made previously to the Kauai C ounty
council. Instead, Chief Perry informed SHOPO that KPD would be rolling out the
implementation of the Body-Worn Camera Program on Monday, December 14, 2015.
61.

On December 15, 2015, SHOPO informed Chief Perry that if KPD insisted

on a course of action that violated the CBA, SHOPO would have no choice but to seek
recourse from the HLRB. SHOPO reminded Chief Perry that during the November 25,
2015 meeting, both parties agreed that future amendments to the body -worn camera
policy would be necessary as issues arise. SHOPO offered Chief Perry an amicable
alternative, by stating, “[s]hould you wish to reconsider your current course of action, and
would like to work with us towards amicably resolving this matter instead, please do not
hesitate to contact me.”
62.

On December 18, 2015, SHOPO became aware that a news release by KPD

was published on the internet on the County of Kauai’s website. The document was an
official News Release by the County of Kauai and KPD, which was marked: “For
Immediate Release: December 18, 2015, Darryl Perry, Chief.” The headline of the News
Release was: “KPD implements first body-worn camera program in state.” In short, the
News Release stated that KPD “is distributing its body-worn cameras to patrol officers next
week, making it the first department in the state to implement a body-worn camera
program.”
63.

Thus, on December 18, 2015, Respondents publicly and officially announced

its intention to implement in full force and effect Version 13 of KPD GO 14-04 BWCS,
without the mutual consent of SHOPO and in violation of the CBA.

17

 64.

Body-Worn Cameras constitute a condition of work, and are thus, necessarily

a subject of mandatory bargaining that requires the mutual consent of both parties. The
Employer’s purported camera policy requires police officers to wear the Body-Worn
Cameras throughout their shift, requiring minute by minute decisions on whether to
activate or not, consider privacy issues, emergencies, etc., and subjects them to disciplinary
action for violations of working requirements associated with the usage of the cameras.
The policy also dictates when and where the camera is required to be used and not used;
when the camera is to be turned on and off; duplication of recordings; downloading,
securing and storing of recordings; where the camera is to be positioned on the officer
during on-duty hours; what disclosures are to be made by an officer to a member of the
public that may be the subject of a recording; whether the public can review a recording at
a scene; and what types of reports are to be generated by an officer making a recording.
65.

Respondents refused to sign SHOPO’s SUP and unilaterally implemented

Version 13 of KPD GO 14-04 BWCS.
66.

By the aforementioned acts, Respondents, and each of them, wilfully violated

the terms of the applicable CBA.
67.

By the aforementioned acts, Respondents, and each of them, wilfully

violated, among other things, HRS Chapter 89 and the prior rulings of the HLRB, including
refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the exclusive representative as required
under HRS §89-9.
68.

By the aforementioned acts, Respondents, and each of them, wilfully

violated, among other things, HRS §§89-9, 10 and13(a)(1), (2), (5), (7), and (8).

18

 69.

The aforementioned conduct of Respondents, and each of them, constitutes a

prohibited practice pursuant to HRS §§89-9, 10 and13(a)(1), (2), (5), (7), and (8).
WHEREFORE, Complainant SHOPO respectfully requests that this Honorable
Board grant appropriate relief against the above-named Respondents, including, but not
limited to, the following:
a.

Interlocutory relief prohibiting continuing violations of the contractual rights

of the public employees of bargaining unit 12 by Respondents;
b.

Declaratory relief in favor of Complainant that the body-worn camera and its

implementation is a mandatory subject of bargaining;
c.

A cease and desist order prohibiting continuing violations of HRS §§89-9, 10

and13(a)(1), (2), (5), (7), and (8);
d.

That an order issue from the Board finding that Respondents have committed

prohibited practices pursuant to HRS §§89-9, 10 and13(a)(1), (2), (5), (7), and (8);
e.

Make whole relief including, but not limited to, all costs and all reasonable

attorney’s fees incurred by SHOPO in bringing and prosecuting this prohibited practice
complaint before the Board;
f.

That an order issue from the Board ordering Respondents to post for

publication, in all locations where SHOPO members may review and gather, for 60 days,
the decision of the Board finding that Respondents committed prohibited practices as
aforesaid, with proof of compliance being made to the Board and SHOPO; and

19

 g.

That an Order issue from the Board against Respondents, and each of them,

for such other and further relief as the Board deems necessary and proper.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 11, 2016.

/s/ Norman K. Kato II
NORMAN K. KATO II
Attorney for Complainant
SHOPO

20