The teachers union pledged to consider "all of our other options" Monday night after the state declined an offer to enter arbitration.

Hawaii State Teachers Association President Wil Okabe said in a statement that the "governor’s rejection of arbitration by a neutral third-party is more than disappointing."

"Instead of trying to find a way to strike a deal, the governor has struck out," Okabe said.

The tough words came after the state said it would let a legal challenge over its imposed contract for teachers play out, rather than resuming talks.

The state also said Hawaii law does not allow the teachers union to enter binding arbitration.

The teachers union "filed its complaint with the Hawaii Labor Relations Board and we respect that process," the governor, schools Superintendent Kathryn Matayoshi and Board of Education Chairman Don Horner said in a joint statement Monday.

They added, "Since negotiations with Hawaii State Teachers Association began last fall, we have been committed to finding a way forward. We continue to be open to mediation through HLRB."

That statement was a response to a weekend vote by HSTA’s executive board aimed at resuming negotiations, more than a month after the state unilaterally imposed a "last, best and final" contract offer for teachers. The board voted to "accept" mediation or arbitration, though it didn’t have an invitation for either.

Rather, the board was reacting to off-the-cuff comments the governor made last week. During a conversation with a retired HSTA member that was recorded and posted online, Gov. Neil Abercrombie said he was "ready … (for) mediation."

Matayoshi and Horner said the state was "open to mediation through HLRB."

The state’s 12,500 public school teachers have been working under an imposed contract offer since July 1, when wage reductions equal to 5 percent and higher medical premiums took effect.

The state says the labor savings were needed to avoid layoffs.

Okabe said the union voted to explore the option of arbitration or mediation to "try to get a contract" and avoid a protracted labor dispute that "could take a year or more."

Okabe said he believes the union is able to enter arbitration and said he understood in doing so, HSTA would have to give up its right to strike — at least for this contract cycle —and accept whatever terms were hammered out.

The tense back-and-forth comes as HSTA prepares to go before the labor board Wednesday for the first of a series of hearings over the state’s decision to unilaterally implement a "last, best and final" offer last month.

The union has filed a "prohibited practice" complaint over the state’s action, arguing the state violated members’ rights, and is also seeking relief from 1.5 percent pay cuts, furloughs and higher health insurance premiums included in the contract offer.

Several labor lawyers expressed doubt Monday that HSTA’s "motion for interlocutory relief" would be granted by the board. The motion seeks to restore the conditions of a contract that expired June 30 and to compel the state to return to negotiations.

To receive relief, the union must meet a fairly high burden, showing the likelihood of its complaint prevailing on the merits, irreparable harm and that providing relief is in the public interest.

Richard Rand, a labor attorney with Marr Jones & Wang, a Honolulu law firm, said the union will have to "show something more than economic injury" to be granted the motion. "They’re going to be sledding uphill with the HLRB," he said.

Labor attorney Michael Nauyokas agreed, saying, "In my opinion, they’re not going to meet the burden" of irreparable harm.

In its motion for interlocutory relief, the union argued that imposing a contract could pose irreparable injury "to the integrity of the collective bargaining process" and the HSTA.

The state’s decision to unilaterally implement its "last, best" contract "affects the very essence of the employers’ free choice of the union (and) hampers collective bargaining," HSTA said.

In a response to the labor relations board, the state called the union’s arguments "illogical" and argued granting the injunction would instead not be in the public’s interest, since the Department of Education would need to find savings elsewhere and could be forced to lay off as many as 700 employees, including teachers.

Meanwhile, teachers had mixed reactions to HSTA’s call for arbitration, with some expressing displeasure over the prospect of giving up their right to strike or accepting an arbitrated deal.

Okabe recognized not everyone is happy, saying, "We have teachers who want to strike. We have teachers who want to settle."