The Hawaii Labor Relations Board will decide in the next few weeks whether the new Honolulu police chief violated the city’s collective bargaining agreement as alleged by the union and outgoing police union President Tenari Maafala.

Maafala testified Friday before the Hawaii Labor Relations Board that he was unhappy Chief Susan Ballard reassigned him to the midnight watch, and alleged that Ballard, in an online news outlet’s story, “inferred” he abused overtime.

Molly Stebbins, attorney for HPD and Ballard, said in cross-examining Maafala that there was nothing in the Dec. 22 Civil Beat article that said the chief said Maafala abused overtime. He said it was not mentioned specifically, but in the general sense.

But what apparently hurt him most were readers’ comments. Maafala related they said, “I’m corrupt, a thief, padding my high three … that I shouldn’t be transferred, I should be fired.” The board sustained Stebbins’ objection that that was hearsay.

The State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) filed a complaint Feb. 5 with the board against Ballard and the Honolulu Police Department claiming Maafala and other union officials were being targeted by their reassignments. The city’s collective bargaining agreement states an employer cannot transfer or reassign a union official unless the employee requests or volunteers for it, or if the transfer or reassignment is due to normal within-unit rotation, an operational need for special skills an officer might possess, or the employee is unable to perform the essential tasks of his or her assigned duties.

Ballard, while appearing as a witness Friday morning, told the labor board that the reassignments were not in retaliation against Maafala and the SHOPO board.

Rather, Ballard said, they were the result of a departmentwide shuffling due to a desire to put more officers on the street, and especially in Waikiki where there has been a spike in crime.

Ballard told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser previously that the new assignments are part of a larger-scale reorganization designed to make HPD more efficient. “We just needed to move forward, to do new things.”

Maafala testified that news of SHOPO officials’ reassignments created fear within the union’s membership, giving the impression the union is weak.

Maafala said he expected a transfer with the new administration, and had been OK with the reassignment to patrol in the Waikiki District up until he learned of the Civil Beat article, yet later admitted to being unhappy with his assignment to the midnight watch.

Under cross-examination Maafala said he did not request a transfer after his reassignment.

Maafala had been assigned to the Peer Support Unit, which Ballard originally had set up in the past as a volunteer group. She told the online publication she wanted to have the unit return to being a volunteer group.

The article reads, “Ballard said the paid officers in the unit, which in addition to Maafala included Don Faumuina and Sgt. Michael Tamashiro, had issues with overtime that, she said, didn’t follow along the spirit of the unit’s mission, which is spelled out in HPD’s policies.”

Stebbins asked Maafala whether he knew that under the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employee cannot voluntarily waive overtime and that this could be “an issue regarding overtime.”

She asked whether would it be fair to say a new chief, seeing a waiver of overtime, would have concerns.

“Sure,” Maafala said.

Stebbins also asked him whether some other incidents may have contributed to his being a controversial figure, including one raised by a reader: Maafala “said he would not enforce laws based on his Christian beliefs.”

Maafala has never reported to his new assignment. Instead he has been using his vacation, and is retiring April 1 from HPD. He applied for the SHOPO executive director position, which unexpectedly opened up, he told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser after the hearing.

Regardless of the outcome of the complaint, Maafala said he will retire and engage in full-time ministry.

Stebbins asked the board to dismiss claims made by SHOPO officers who failed to attend the hearing, as well as specific violations of the statute relating to a public employer interfering with an employee organization.

Board members said any motion must be put in writing and that the board would decide whether the hearing must resume based on the written motion. A decision on the complaint will come after the motion is submitted, answered by SHOPO by April 13, then reviewed by the board.