Should managers of county workers be allowed to transfer idle employees to areas where more work needs to be done?

That was the issue that drew county administrators from across the state to the Capitol yesterday. The managers urged lawmakers to honor the governor's veto of a labor bill that they say could delay emergency services and cost taxpayers more money by hampering their ability to move workers where they are needed.

However, unions are calling for a veto override and say the bill does not take away managers' rights. Rather, they say, it just opens the door for more negotiation over matters like employee transfers and promotions.

Democratic lawmakers seem inclined to side with the unions. Senate leaders already think they have the votes for an override of Senate Bill 1642 and the House is exploring whether it also has the numbers.

The legislation stems from a 2005 Supreme Court decision that validated the city's right to transfer 13 Pearl City refuse workers to another baseyard rather than pay them to stay in place when their work was complete, said House Majority Leader Kirk Caldwell. Democratic lawmakers feel that the opinion attached to the ruling was tilted too heavily in favor of county managers and gave the employees little room to negotiate if their jobs were being relocated.

"This legislation is designed to bring it back into balance again," Caldwell said.

He added that the bill does not call for negotiations on individual transfers — the biggest complaint among county managers. The procedures and criteria for personnel matters are meant to be laid out in collective bargaining agreements.

But to Frank Doyle, the city's chief of refuse, "The real story is that they're trying to undo what the Supreme Court said was right in law."

MANAGERS RESPOND

Attempts to pass similar bills in 2005 and 2006 were also vetoed, but this is the first time an override seems likely, prompting the counties to bring out about 100 uniformed managers to rally at the state Capitol yesterday.

Among them were three county fire chiefs, four county police chiefs and other first responders.

"We've been able to execute our duties to save lives and protect property," said Honolulu Fire Capt. Ken Silva. "This has been achieved in great part because of management's ability to assign, transfer and deploy manpower as needed to mitigate emergencies."

If the bill becomes law, however, "it could cripple our efforts to do that and paralyze our operations," said Maui Police Chief Thomas Phillips.

Lori Kahikina-Moniz, acting chief of collection and system maintenance for the city's Environmental Services Department, speculated about what would happen if there was a sewage spill and she wasn't able to deploy maintenance workers or borrow personnel from other departments. "That's more sewage backing up into your home, backing up into the Ala Wai and contaminating our beaches," she said.

Randy Perreira, deputy executive director of the Hawai'i Government Employees Association, calls the counties' positions nonsense. "It's crap," he said.

"We are not in any way seeking to limit what the employer has to do, particularly in emergency circumstances," he said.

He added that "chaos-type argument" was an insult to rank-and-file emergency responders because they would not jeopardize public safety over a petty labor dispute.

CITY PREVAILS

However, county officials say their argument is not rhetoric and they already went through this in 2001 when the city moved to automated refuse trucks, leaving too many workers at the Pearl City baseyard and not enough in Honolulu.

When the city attempted to transfer the Pearl City workers without negotiation, the United Public Workers Union challenged the move and won before both the Labor Relations Board and in Circuit Court.

Until the Supreme Court overturned those rulings in January 2005, the city was forced to pay $350,000 a year to cover the idle Pearl City workers' salaries and the overtime costs at the understaffed Honolulu baseyard.

Perreira said the unions don't want to see a repeat of that situation. "This bill would not in anyway overturn anything that was done in UPW v. Hannemann. I think the Supreme Court acted appropriately and the city had a right to transfer the refuse workers."

In her veto message, Gov. Linda Lingle said the bill would erode management's rights. "By allowing negotiations on the criteria management uses to act on matters such as layoffs, transfers and assignments, it involves labor on the fundamental decision-making process of management," she wrote.

However, Perreira said while it would allow the union to offer proposals, it would not require the employer to negotiate or agree. "It would take both parties to agree. These are not subject to binding arbitration," he said.

Reach Treena Shapiro at tshapiro@honoluluadvertiser.com.