On Thursday, January 17, 2013 starting at 11:00 a.m., the Hawaii Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in District Council 50, of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades v. Lopez, No. SCWC-28762.

In that case, the court is presented with the question of whether the Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Haw. 450, 40 P.3d 73 (2002) dictates that in renovation, a contractormust hire specialty contractors for all work that is covered by aspecialty license, or whether the contractor can perform any worknecessary to complete the renovation (aside from work requiring aspecial permit, of course). The specific issue is whether the holder of a specialtyrenovation license is entitled to do certain specialty renovation workas "incidental and supplemental" to that license. The HawaiiIntermediate Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the licensee, anddismissed a challenge by another specialty contractor, and held that the Contractors' License Board was within its discretion when it adoptedadministrative rules defining the term "incidental and supplemental."

We filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the General Contractors Association, the  Building Industry Association of Hawaii, Hawaii Island Contractors Association, Contractors Assocition of Kauai, Gordon L. Scruton, Jas. Glover, Ltd., Kaikor Construction Co., Ltd., and Ralph S. Inouye Co. The brief urges the Supreme Court to affirm the ICA, and argues that the case implicates much more than the scope of contractors’ licenses,and whether a contractor with a C-5 specialty renovation licenseentitling it in a renovation project to perform "any other work" thatwill not change the structure, must employ a C-22 subcontractor toreplace windows. Rather, this case asks whether the Board’s definitionof "incidental and supplemental" work deserves deference because it isconsistent with the plain meaning of those words, and whether theBoard—comprised of five general contractors, five specialty contractors, and three members of the public who have been charged with theresponsibility of carrying out the mandate of the contractor licensingstatutes—"possesses expertise and experience in [its] particular field."

Three Supreme Court justices — Chief Justice Recktenwald, and Justices Acoba and Pollack — have recused themselves, and three circuit judges have been assigned in their places.

Here are the issues in the case, as framed by the Judiciary's web site:

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, District Council 50 of theInternational Union of Painters and Allied Trades and Aloha Glass Sales& Service, Inc., filed an application for writ of certiorari toreview the August 22, 2012 Judgment on Appeal of the Intermediate Courtof Appeals (“ICA”), entered pursuant to its July 26, 2012 MemorandumOpinion. The ICA’s judgment affirmed the Circuit Court of the FirstCircuit’s (circuit court) judgment in favor ofRespondent/Defendant-Appellee Kealiʻi S. Lopez, in her capacity asdirector of the Department of Commerce & Consumer Affairs. Thecircuit court affirmed the Department of Commerce and Consumer AffairsContractors License Board’s (“Board”) finding that a B general buildingcontractor may complete work falling within the C-22 specialty glazingand tinting license under the incidental and supplemental provisions ofits automatic C-5 specialty remodeling and repairing license. This case arose from the State of Hawaii’s renovation project at LanakilaElementary School, which included, in part, the installation of aluminum jalousie windows.

In their application, Petitioners argue that the ICA gravely erred in affirming the Board’s decision because: (1) the Board’s decision wasinconsistent with this court’s opinion in Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. ofWater Supply, 97 Hawai`i 450, 40 P.3d 73 (2002); and (2) the Board’sinterpretation of the terms “incidental and supplemental” was clearlyerroneous, contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and inconsistentwith the legislature’s underlying purpose.

I'll bring you a report after the arguments.