NICANOR E. CASUMPANG, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, vs. ILWU LOCAL 142, Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant., 108 Haw. 411

Summary

The employee argued that the court erred in dismissing his complaint inasmuch as its finding that the union had no policies permitting payment for unused vacation was clearly erroneous and its conclusion that the definition of "wages" in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 388-1 (1993) did not include payment for unused vacation was an error of law. The supreme court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the employee's complaint as the policy allegedly allowing the payment of unused vacation was not introduced at trial and "wages," as defined in § 388-1, did not include vacation pay. The union argued that the district court erred in dismissing its counterclaim based on its conclusion that it was not obligated to enforce a fine levied by the union's judicial panel. Specifically, the union averred that the district court's conclusion was based on an erroneous determination that the union's constitution did not permit the panel to impose fines on its members or officers for violating the ...