Senate Standing Committee on Labor and Technology

Good after noon everyone happy Aloha Monday this is the Senate Committee on Labor and Technology. This is our 3pm agenda. Today is February 2 2026 and we are in Conference Room 225. This hearing is also being streamed on the Hawaii State Senate's YouTube channel. Just a few housekeeping announcements in the unlikely case of technical failures.

This meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on February 4 2026 at 3:00pm for all testifiers, including those on Zoom, we ask that you stand on your written testimony. If your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be one minute.

The content, including the hearing notice, copies of the measures and testimony can be found on the Legislature's website if time permits. Decision making worker after we hear from those offering testimony. First up on our list is Senate Bill 2567. This is relating to petitions to temporary temporarily restrain and enjoin harassment of an employee.

First from the Judiciary we have Nicholas Severson.

Aloha. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair laponte, Vice Chair lamassao, Committee Members, Nick Seberson, Staff Attorney at the Hawaii Supreme Court, testifying for the Judiciary in support of Senate Bill 2567. As outlined in our written testimony, there has been a significant increase in harassment, acts of violence and threats against public servants in recent years.

Senate Bill 2567 would permit public employees to seek temporary restraining orders on behalf of employees that face employment related harassment. This Bill would lessen the burden on public servants experiencing harassment and would empower public employers to maintain safe working environments and ensure continuity of operations.

In conclusion, the Judiciary supports Senate Bill 2567 and we respectfully request the Committee pass this measure. I'm available for any questions that the Committee may have.

Thank you so much. Ryan Yamania, Director of Department of Human Services.

Standing testimony, sir.

Okay, Standing on testimony and support. Thank you. We also have Deputy Attorney General Diana Sumarna. Aloha. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair as well as Senator Deputy Attorney General Diana Sumarna. We provide the comments as detailed in our written testimony and primarily we recommend that the very difficult balancing between protecting. Public servants while they are able to. Serve the people of Hawaii. And I am available for your questions.

Okay, thank you so much. We also have Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, Department of education and after Mr. Hayashi, we have nui sabas from HGA.

Hello, Chair Elefante, Vice Chair Lamasao, Members of the Committee, Keith Hayashi, Superintendent, Department of Education. The Department stands on its written testimony in support of this measure. Department supports the proactive protections being provided in this Bill and believes these protections should be extended to all Department employees. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Okay, thank you, Mr.

Superintendent Nui Sabas.

Aloha.

Welcome, Chair. Vice Chair. Member Nui Sebaster with hgea. We'll stand on our comments. Respectfully request an amendment to broaden the definition of public servant to include all public employees within the state or its political subdivisions. Thank you. Thank you so much.

And then we also have Christian Fern from the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly in support with amendments. That completes our list of registered testifiers on Senate Bill 2567. Anyone else that wishes to testify in this measure, if not Members? Questions. Senator Morwocke for the Judiciary.

I noticed that your testimony is in support of all of the appointed Members or elected Members, and we've had a number of testimonies that it should be all public employees. Does the Judiciary have any concerns of why it focused just on the appointed and elected officials?

Yes. Thank you for the question. And we did have a chance to review the testimony provided by others as well. The Bill as drafted incorporated the definitions of hrs92h in defining both the public employers and public servants.

The judiciary would not be opposed to there being an expansion of the covered individuals based on how the Legislature would see fit.

So you have no problem with expanding it to just all public servants?

That's correct. The judiciary would not oppose that.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any further questions? If not, thank you. We'll move on to our next item on our agenda, which is Senate Bill 2386. This is relating to employment earnings. This clarifies that the requirement to disclose hourly rates or salary ranges on job listing applies to full time, part time, temporary, or seasonal employment.

Exempts employers having fewer than 25 employees, rather than 50 from the disclosure requirement, effective January 1st, 2027. First up on our list in person, we have Yong Heoverli. Aloha and welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee. My name is Yong Heoverli and I am representing AAUW of Hawaii.

You have my written testimony, but I also wanted to share with you that when I was in management at IBM 20 some years ago, IBM decided to make salary range available for discussion as a part of performance appraisal and pay raise discussion for the managers. And we did it to be transparent.

It ended up becoming a retention tool because employees think about it as employees. Right? Employees appreciated the fact that we are sharing such information in discussion about pay.

So, it is wonderful to see that years later, that pay scale, as well as society of human resource management, are realizing that pay transparency is one of the best employment practice. And I asked.

Thank you. Your time's up.

Okay.

Thank you.

Next up on our list is Heather McVeigh, online.

Hi. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Heather McVeigh with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. We'll stand on our testimony. We're available for questioning. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. And your testimony is in support, is that correct? I'm sorry, we missed.

Yes, I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you.

Yep, got it. Thank you. We have Gene Evans. Aloha, welcome.

Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. I'm Gene Evans and I am support of this, this Bill. I just wanted to—you have my testimony. I want to stand on that. But I did want to point out a couple of things.

If you can speak closer into the mic, please. Thank you.

I do recommend that you actually go all the way and make this apply to all employees. I have personal experience there, as an Executive Director. I was in two positions. The first I applied and I had no idea what the salary range was. And I took it. It sounded good.

I made a raise and come to find out my predecessor had made twice as much as I did and I didn't know that. And it was in a—both positions were between 16 and 22 employees. So, there's a whole bunch of people there that it's going to affect. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. In total, we had 15 in support, one in opposition—Mike Yosua from NFIB Hawaii, in opposition, Anne Fried, co-chair of the Hawaii State Democratic Women's Caucus, in support, and the following other individuals in support.

Robin Wurtzel, Jamie Nwalu, Wendy Dame, Sandy Ma, Victoria Breaster, Annette Barr, Nancy Rustad, Christine Andrews, Beth Anderson, Eileen M. Gowres, and Elizabeth Hansen. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate Bill 2386. Anyone else that wishes to testify in this measure? If not, members, questions? Move on to our next item. This is Senate Bill 2389.

This is relating to warehouse workers. Establishes the Warehouse Protection Act. Requires certain warehouse employees to provide written descriptions of quotas to employees and maintain records of quotas and employee workspeed data. Protects employees from quotas that would prevent compliance with meal or rest periods or the use of bathroom facilities.

Allows employees to request a written description of their quota and employee work speed data. Requires that the Director of Labor and Industrial Relations to adopt rules and implement the provisions of this act—of the act. First up on our list is offering commonts, Director Jade Butai or Representative from Labor. Aloha. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Senator Moriwaki. Cheryl Lee, on behalf of Director Butai for the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. We stand on our written testimony offering comments and we'll be here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. On Zoom, Matthew Onbe or Raquel A. Pendleton from the Attorney General's Office, offering comments. Oh, in person. Okay. Even better. If you can identify yourself, please.

Good afternoon, Chairman, Vice Chair, Senator Moriwaki...Deputy Attorney General. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. This Bill establishes a new Hawaii Revised Statute chapter with a Section 10, which.

Oh, if you could please talk into the mic because they can't hear you online. Sorry. Thank you.

Which authorizes the Attorney General to prosecute cases arising from violations of this chapter.

Because Hawaii Revised Statute Sections 20, 20-1, 20-2, and 20-2.5 already provide the Attorney General with broad prosecutorial powers to prosecute all cases involving violations of state law, we recommend that Section 10, in its entirety, be deleted to avoid the potential unintended effect of the Bill being filed to limit the Attorney General's power under the chapter.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you so much. And then, we also have a testimony from Brandon Wolf, Vice President for the ILWU International, in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate Bill 2389. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure. If not, Members, question?

Senator Moriwaki.

Labor Department.

Well, this Bill is very well intended to protect the warehouse workers, but you say that it's difficult to enforce and enforcement is really important when we pass law. So, can you tell me what is difficult or how can you address it in the Bill, or can it be addressed?

So, our understanding is about the quota and the timing of how it's measured. The way we enforce it now is already based on time records and because the statute kind of provides, if it's less than 30 minutes, then it's compensable time. The way the Bill, I believe, states that it includes the breaks. So, breaks—if they take a break, it won't be included, but we already include breaks as compensable time, so, that might be the conflict there.

So, is that the only thing, the quota and the timing? How do you guys enforce it so that we can make sure that they aren't, that they aren't being—I guess the problem is I'm not really clear on the problem, but I think the problem is that they have quotas, and they don't know and they're not keeping track of it. So, how might we address that problem?

So, I believe it's the employer's responsibility and it is in the law that they need to keep time records. The problem we would have is if they don't, if it's like based on salary or piecework, they might not have that requirement on the time that they spend working.

So, a lot of times that we have problems with is time records. So, if they don't have that, that would be the difficulty of enforcing it.

So, do you, do you penalize for not keeping records?

Yes, we do.

And do you go in only when there is a complaint? So, if the warehouse worker doesn't know they can complain, then.

It's mostly complaint driven. But we do also randoms. We do randoms.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions? If not, thank you, Ms. Lee. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to our next item on our agenda, which is Senate Bill 2663. This is relating to workers' compensation.

Requires an employer to transmit written approval or denial of a treatment plan to the physician who transmitted the plan for approval within seven days of receipt of the plan. Clarifies provisions relating to denying a treatment plan burden of proof and objections. Establishes fines and requires the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations to assess penalties.

First up on our list is Director Hashimoto from DHRD Okay. DHRD. Stands on written testimony in opposition. Thank you. Director Butai or someone else. Aloha. Welcome.

Aloha. And good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair and Senator Moriwocki. Joann Vidinhar, Administrator for Disability Compensation Division with the Department. The Department appreciates the intent of Senate Bill 2663 to improve timely treatments for injured workers. And this is a Bill that came out of the working group. However, we respectively oppose this measure as drafted.

We emphasize key concerns that can compromise procedural fairness for employers and conflicts with existing statutory requirements. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'm available for questions. Okay. Thank you so much.

Okay. We have Milia Leong for the Hawaii Insurance Council offering comments. Kamakana Kamiloa. Okay. UPW in support. Thank you. Mike Pacheco on Zoom.

Aloha. Chair Elephante, Vice Chair Lamasa and Senator Moriwaki. Thank you for letting me opportunity to testify. My name is Mike Pacheco. And on behalf of IBEW 1186 and the 3000 Members that we represent, we in support with amendments and we are here and stand on our testimony and are here to answer any questions. But thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Pacheco. We also have Nancy Monden in support on Zoom.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes. You have a minute?

Okay. Thank you. Chair and Senators, my name is Nancy and I'm in support of the Bill. Over 30 years, I worked as a nurse case manager in workers compensation advocating for workers. However, I am an injured worker myself. After sustaining a back injury, my treatment plan received no approval or denial, only silence.

Treatment plans are resubmitted and submitted again, but without any written authorization. Care was delayed for two to three years and I was in constant pain. Only after independent medical exam and testing and surgery was approved. Then my. Then a few years have passed and I lost the years. That's gone. This experience is not unique.

This happens every day. Injured workers and medical providers are left in limbo because written authorizations are not issued even when the law requires timely responses. SB2663 addresses this problem directly. It requires written.

Thank you, Nancy. Your time is up and we do have your written testimony. Thank you. Okay, we have Kathy Wilson, Aloha Billing Co. In support. Thank you. And then that completes our list of those that wanted to testify in person or on Zoom. In addition to this, for this measure, we had aid in support to an opposition.

The other folks are workers' compensation physicians, President in support for the Waima Work Injury Medical Association of Hawaii, Christian Fern, Executive Director for University of Hawaii Professional Assembly in support. And we also have Patty Tara Toku Uke in support and Malia Kiolanui from Island Alleviation also in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers.

Anyone else that wishes to testify on Senate Bill 2663? Yes. Please come forward and state your name.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair Members, my name is David Bernstein. I'm here individually and on behalf of the Hawaii Injured Workers Association, also known as HIWA. Just FYI, I've been practicing workers compensation claimant work for 40 years and I only handle surgery cases, amputations and deaths. I handle the most serious cases as.

Reflected in my ED and the bar directory. We are strongly in support of the Bill. Hawaii's General shortage on doctors. We have a shortage of 800 and many nurses. The worst problem in the workers compensation case is the denial on workers compensation treatment plans. It is a horrific, horrific problem, as.

The witness testified, can drag on for years. Presently, no medical provider will proceed on a negative. Okay. If they want an affirmative to know that they can go ahead with the treatment and be paid. We strongly support the one problem with the Bill that we see is the Sentence J which says any act taken in support.

Thank you. Your time's up.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, David. Anyone else on Senate Bill 2663, if not Members questions? Senator Moriwaki, Labor Department request for a representative from DLIR.

Thank you. Aloha. Can you address the Injured Workers Association, Nancy, on the screen that these delays with employer accepting or denying a claim and how is that rectified?

Because I think that's the big problem is the delays and is there something that we could put into law that would accelerate or at least be able to expedite the review by the employer?

Thank you Senator for that question. That's a question that we look at quite often. It's not a quick fix only because when you look at an injured worker, we're looking at the attending physician that is going to be responsible for the treatment or the care of the CP individual.

However, as with injuries, there are some times that other physicians need to be involved as a specialist or as a surgeon. And so you may have a delay in responses from an employer because they're waiting for the attending physician to approve that other treatment.

So you can look at overall their treatments are approved but the additional treatments may not. There may not be good communication. So the statute does address that a physician can treat.

However, what we've seen in the last several years and we don't know where that paramount shift went, but we saw the shift where the physicians were hesitant to treat because they didn't know, actually, if that treatment plan was approved. So in our from the Department of Labor we look at communication as really needed and it's lacking.

And so that's the part where you can't just put a seven-day standard on there because the statute does look at the more aggressive like surgeries and consultation that it does give that seven-day.

And so the intent of the Bill was to give a standard across the board, but it's not a one size fits all unfortunately because of the different types of treatments that are needed as well as, even if as the Bill is saying that even if there's no response and the Director needs to interject and have a hearing, I will not conduct a hearing unless I have the IME, which is the independent medical report exam.

And that's what the employer is looking for oftentimes. And so without that having the medical documentation or supporting documentation, it's hard for the employer to respond so.

But so, so is there anything so you're saying the source of the problem may be the physician or physicians making a determination.

So is there something in law that we could expect that part of it or any part of it, so that we can get information needed by the employer to make a decision and for you guys to then get the information.

We've looked at it. I don't have a clear answer for you today. We will take a look at it again to see if there is a place that we can close in that gap. But without good communication or collaboration between the employers, the physicians, it makes it difficult.

Could you put a time limit, let's say maybe seven days seems a little short, but maybe 14 days. And if it's not done within 14 days, instead of just.

I know that you can accept the claim or deny the claim, but can you then have some way of knowing what the status of that claim or assessment, something that moves it along?

Right. And we can look at that if we put in with the director's discretion, because there is the second part of the Bill is that you're penalizing all. And we don't think that that is fair to penalize those that approved it, but maybe didn't respond within that time frame because of valid reasons.

And so the Department does want to take a look at. We are not very aggressive in our finding or penalizing the employers. And that's something that we can do. And we are looking at doing that a little bit more aggressively. But that's once we have a hearing to determine that someone really did not respond responsibly.

And so with that, we can look at some ways, but we think that the Director has to have discretion in that because it can't be a hard infection. Every work comp case is a little. Well, it's case by case. So just to put a standard across is going to be hard for us to.

So you are aware of the problems that surfaced in this? Absolutely. So. And you are working on it. Could we have something sooner than later on how we can address the problem?

I don't know that we have that answer. But yes, we are scratching our heads to see how we can do this. That if it is a timeline, but even if I say if it's 14 days, that may not address all of the issues.

If I don't have an IME, an IME can take me some time to get that report and without that IME, they can't look at if it's reasonable to continue a treatment.

Good. Questions? Any further questions, Members? Okay. If not, thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, we. I know you rose. You rose your hand, but we. I believe we already called on you. I believe on this. So once unless a Member has a question, they could, they could ask you to come back. But in the respect to be fair, that's how we run our meetings. I'm sorry. Yep. Any further questions, Members?

Okay. If not, then we'll proceed to our last item on our agenda. Senate Bill 2555. This is relating to the government allows a retirement to be employed without re-enrollment in the employee's retirement system and without loss or interruption of benefits if the retirement is employed in a position identified for succession planning purposes.

The only one registered to testify is Calbert Young, Executive Director for ERS, offering comments. Aloha. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Madam Vice Chair. Members. So for this Bill, Senate Bill 2555. The Board of trustees hasn't taken an official position on this Bill yet.

However, the Employee Retirement System is appreciative of the intent and wanted to include it in our testimony is a number of provisions that are already existing in the Bill that as this Bill progresses it would be important to keep in mind, namely the period for break in service that's consistent with other parts of the already existing statute and then that the employer payments to the retirement system less the amount of the employee contribution as well. With that. Happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chair.

Okay, thank you. Members. Any questions? Senator Moriwaki.

You mentioned your testimony that there should be a report. And I know this. That's not in the, in the Bill itself. But when you say a report, what are you talking about? Or you know, if you give us what that should look like.

Yes, Senator, that's related to the Bill focuses on allowance for succession planning. So it would be good for the sake of consistency across all of the employer jurisdictions if there was some mechanism that helps with equity and consistency.

One avenue could be requiring the directors for the human resources Department of each employer jurisdiction to make the call. But also consistent with other bills and statute, a annual report for whichever positions in whichever jurisdictions were utilized or where this Bill statute was utilized to fill those positions. That would help meet the same purpose.

Thank you. Yeah, because it also says labor shortage are difficult to fill. So all of those criteria for.

Right. There already is a difficult to fill provision in the existing statute along with the reporting requirements. So to make the inclusion for succession planning would also make it consistent.

Thank you. One more question for someone else. Thank you. Mr. Young. Request for Director Hashimoto.

Hi, Brenna Hashimoto, Director of DHRD.

Just a short question. You heard ERS Director say that we would want a record of positions needed for succession planning to be added to your report or at least some consistency in a definition of what that is. Would that be a problem? Or that.

I think I would echo what Executive Director Young mentioned. From the HR perspective. I'm not entirely sure what that means in terms of situation, succession planning and how we would advise departments recognizing that individuals cannot be rehired unless they take the mandatory six month or one year break.

It seems to me succession planning typically occurs before someone separates. So to have have this break and then bring them back for the purpose of succession planning, I'm not entirely sure how that works or would work or how we would identify when that situation is appropriate.

And as he mentioned, there are already mechanisms in place to allow us to rehire retirees in addition to bringing them back without foregoing their retirement. We also have 89 day hires which we can appoint anyone for up to two years in an 89 day higher capacity which could be used for that purpose. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions for the Director? Okay. If not, thank you. Anyone else on Senate Bill 2555? If not Members, if you're okay, we do have quorum. We'll just roll into decision making. So first up is Senate Bill 2567. This is relating to petitions to temporarily restrain and enjoin harassment of an employee.

Appreciate the Judiciary's proposal on this. The Chair would like to take a little more time to meet with the parties, especially the Judiciary and Attorney General's office, to see what we can come up with. So Chair's gonna recommend that we defer decision making on this Bill to Friday, February 132026 at 3:00pm in Conference Room 225.

Next item on our agenda is Senate Bill 2386. This is relating to employment earnings. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments. We're gonna change the effective date to January 12077. Any further discussion? Okay. If not, Vice Chair Lamasoft for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Voting on SB 2386. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator Ihara, Senator Moriwaki, Senator Favela is excused and will be record or recorded. As excused for the remainder of the. Voting unless he does appear. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you so much. Vice Chair Lamasa. Next up on our agenda is Senate Bill 2389. This is relating to warehouse workers. Hearing some of the concerns from the regarding enforcement. Chair's going to recommend that we defer. Next up is Senate Bill 2663. This is relating to workers compensation. Chair is going to recommend that we pass with amendments.

And I'd like to keep this Bill moving for further discussion on page 5, lines 5 and 6. The fine shall be paid to the special Compensation Fund as to stated in hrs. 386151. Special Compensation Fund established and maintained. We're also going to accept the amendments as contained in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union, 1186.

As it relates to subsection J, the Director shall enforce the penalties provided for in this section. If any employer fails to pay penalty assessed by the Director under this section within 30 days, the injured employee or the Director may enforce the order in accordance with Section 386. 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes.

And then we're also going to put a. We're going to change the effective date to January 12077. Any further discussion? Okay. If not, Vice Chair Lamasa for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Members voting on SB 2663, recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendment. Anyone voting with reservations? Anyone voting no? No. Also noting the the excused absence of Senator Favela for the remainder of the voting period. Chair, your recommendation. Sorry. All Members vote. I. Chair, present. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. And then our last item on the agenda, which is Senate Bill 2555. This is relating to government. Our chairs are going to recommend that we pass amendments.

We're going to accept ERS's proposed language in their testimony and their amendment on the second to last paragraph, where we're going to require an annual report to the Legislature by the Director of the of Human Resources of the appropriate state or county jurisdiction could provide sufficient oversight to ensure determinations are consistent with applicable laws and rules.

And then we're also going to change the effective date to January 12077. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Voting on SB 2555, recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Anyone voting with reservations? Anyone voting no. All Members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you so much. Vice Chair, this concludes our business for today. The Committee on Labor and Technology is adjourned.