The state Supreme Court rejected Tuesday a request by the Hawaii State Teachers Association to compel the Hawaii Labor Relations Board to issue a quick ruling on whether teachers deserve immediate relief from a new two-year contract imposed by the state.

The teachers union wanted teachers to get relief from a 5 percent salary reduction and an equal split on health insurance premiums while the union pursues a prohibited-practices complaint against the state with the labor board.

The court denied the union’s request, finding that the labor board is acting within its discretion, but judges determined that teachers may exercise their right to strike once the prohibited-practices complaint is resolved.

Wil Okabe, president of the teachers union, had said previously that the union believed teachers could not strike until several other pending complaints against the state are settled by the labor board.

"We’re very pleased that the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that HSTA has the right to strike after a decision is made here at the labor board," Okabe said.

The Supreme Court’s ruling also means that if teachers choose to drop their prohibited-practices complaint against the state over the contract, they could move toward a strike as leverage against Gov. Neil Abercrombie.

Okabe, however, said the teachers union intends to continue to make the case before the labor board that the new contract is a violation of the state constitutional right to collective bargaining. He said the teachers union has no immediate plans to consider a strike. He also renewed his suggestion that Abercrombie voluntarily agree to binding arbitration to resolve the dispute.

"HSTA is in it for the long haul," Okabe said. "We will go the distance because it deals with constitutional rights."

Abercrombie, the state school board and the state Department of Education unilaterally imposed the new contract on teachers in July after the teachers union’s board rejected a tentative agreement negotiators had reached with the state.

Abercrombie said the Supreme Court’s denial of the union’s request to compel the labor board to act quickly on whether teachers should have immediate relief from the contract is the latest in a string of losses for the union. The labor board and the state Ethics Commission previously dismissed a union complaint that the governor undermined the impartiality of the labor board with a private letter — shared with the union — that discussed the possibility of mediation.

"We respect and support teachers and their contributions," Abercrombie said in a statement. "The tactics of the Hawaii State Teachers Association and its attorneys are being rejected across the board by the legal system in every venue. These theatrics serve no public purpose, and they undermine the fact that our students are in schools learning and our teachers are in classrooms teaching.

"We never received any proposed alternatives from HSTA after its board refused to submit our tentative agreement to the membership. It is time to move on."

Public-sector labor leaders also have been critical of the tactics that teachers and their attorneys have used in the fight with Abercrombie, and many are privately baffled by what appears to be a lack of cohesive legal and political strategies.

But labor leaders were pleased by the Supreme Court’s clarification of the teachers’ right to strike. The University of Hawaii Professional Assembly has intervened in the teachers’ complaint with the labor board primarily because the faculty union wants the right to strike preserved in state labor law. Teachers, university faculty and blue-collar public workers have the right to strike, while white-collar and public health and safety workers can opt for binding arbitration.

"The Supreme Court’s decision was clear, unambiguous, for all the points that it raised," said J.N. Musto, executive director of the faculty union.

Musto said the critical decision before the labor board is whether the state, like private-sector employers under federal labor law, can impose "last, best and final" offers after contract talks reach impasse. He said the labor board’s determination could have implications on the right to strike.

At a hearing Tuesday before the labor board, Herbert Takahashi, an attorney for the teachers union, pressed Neil Dietz, the state’s chief labor negotiator, on whether Abercrombie had a statewide governmental policy to obtain 5 percent labor savings and an equal split on health insurance premiums from all public-sector unions.

Dietz said the Abercrombie administration has consistently sought those concessions in negotiations with unions this year.

Takahashi will attempt to convince the labor board that a statewide governmental policy, and the inclusion of the 5 percent labor savings and the health insurance split for all unions in the state budget, violated the right to collective bargaining because teachers were still in contract talks when the budget was approved and signed into law.