The teachers union expressed disappointment Wednesday after the Hawaii Labor Relations Board decided to take more time to consider the union’s motion seeking relief from imposed wage reductions and higher medical premiums.

After a day of oral arguments, it’s unclear when the labor board will rule on the matter.

"I was surprised that they didn’t have a ruling," said Hawaii State Teachers Association President Wil Okabe, adding that teachers are already feeling the pain with pay cuts, furloughs and higher health care costs. "We just have to proceed. But this is definitely a distraction for teachers."

HSTA’s motion seeks to restore the conditions of a contract that expired June 30 and compel the state to return to the bargaining table.

It was filed in addition to a "prohibited practice" complaint, which argues the state acted in bad faith and violated members’ rights when it unilaterally implemented a "last, best and final" contract offer July 1.

The proceedings Wednesday, which lasted more than five hours, provided a preview of the arguments the HSTA and state will make next week, when the board plans to take up the union’s complaint.

The burden of persuading the labor board rested with HSTA, so the union’s attorney, Herb Takahashi, gave a lengthy rundown of events leading up to the state’s action and argued that state players bargained in bad faith, threatened layoffs and had a "take it or leave it" posture.

But Jim Halverson, supervising deputy attorney general with the state Employment Law Division, argued that the state did its part in negotiations and eventually had to do something to realize labor savings. He said teacher layoffs as an alternative to pay cuts and higher health care premiums aren’t a threat, but a reality.

"It’s all about money. We don’t have it," Halverson said.

To receive relief from the labor board, the union must show the likelihood of its complaint prevailing on the merits, irreparable harm from the state’s action and that providing relief is in the public interest.

Takahashi said the motion would restore the teachers’ status, so negotiations can continue on a new contract for teachers, without the HSTA being at a disadvantage.

"A restoration of the status quo … is absolutely fundamental for this dispute to be resolved," he said.

He also argued that the state’s position — that granting the relief could trigger hundreds of teacher and other layoffs — was akin to holding "this board hostage" and "wholly against public interest and public policy."

Halverson countered that the layoffs are a real danger, and would go against a "tangible public interest in keeping the public schools running with the number of teachers they’ve got."

On the issue of the union’s complaint prevailing on the merits, Halverson said "the employer not only negotiated in good faith, it was the union that created the situation. We’re clearly at impasse."

Also discussed during the proceedings was the issue of a strike.

HSTA maintains that relief from the imposed contract is also needed because a strike is not an option. Oka­be said the union cannot go out on strike because of pending HLRB complaints, a point the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly and the state both disagree with.

However, UHPA attorney Tony Gill supported HSTA’s motion, saying that because the state has never unilaterally implemented a "last, best" contract, the board should err on the side of the "prior practice."

UHPA was able to participate in the labor board case after its "petition for intervention" was granted Wednesday.

UHPA asked to offer formal comments in the case because it has a "distinct interest" in the outcome of the labor board proceedings and any appeals.