A Circuit Court judge yesterday granted the Hawai'i Government Employees Association preliminary and permanent injunctions against Gov. Linda Lingle's furlough plans, a final judgment that enables the Lingle administration to appeal.

Circuit Judge Karl Sakamoto had ruled earlier this month that Lingle's unilateral order of three furlough days a month for two years was unconstitutional and should be subject to collective bargaining.

Since the ruling, Lingle has discussed furloughs with public-sector union leaders in negotiations on new contracts but the governor continues to believe furloughs are a management right under state labor law.

"Gov. Lingle and I continue to believe that Judge Sakamoto erred in his legal analysis, and that the governor has the right to implement the three-day-per-month furlough plan," state Attorney General Mark Bennett said in a statement. "The state also believes Judge Sakamoto erred in deciding that he, rather than the Hawai'i Labor Relations Board, had jurisdiction in this matter.

"The state will shortly file an appeal and will seek expedited consideration of that appeal. Gov. Lingle continues to believe that her furlough plan was the best way to address the state's fiscal crisis, and regrets that the HGEA and other public employer unions took the position in court that they did."

The HGEA would not comment yesterday, referring to previous statements alleging that the governor's furlough plans were unconstitutional.

The HGEA had sought a preliminary injunction against Lingle's furlough plans while the Hawai'i State Teachers Association and the United Public Workers asked for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The unions also wanted permanent injunctions.

Sakamoto yesterday formally granted the HGEA's preliminary injunction and, since the judge had already ruled on the facts of the case, entered into a permanent injunction in the interest of judicial efficiency because an appeal was likely.

Sakamoto determined that the governor's furlough plans clearly involved core subjects of collective bargaining, such as wages, hours and conditions of employment. The state Constitution recognizes that public workers have the right to collective bargaining.

"The court concludes that the core subject of collective bargaining is wages," Sakamoto wrote. "Furloughs involve actual wages decreasing. Because the governor's order directly decreases wages, furloughs must be be negotiated."

Sakamoto said the Lingle administration did not prove that the decline in state revenues because of the recession was an emergency, such as an act of war or natural disaster, that outweighed the right to collective bargaining.

The judge also said it was proper for Circuit Court, and not the Hawai'i Labor Relations Board, to first hear the legal challenge because it involved a constitutional question. The judge, however, rejected the HGEA's request to limit the governor from imposing new layoff procedures because the governor has not yet ordered layoffs.

Lingle has provided the HGEA and UPW a list of 1,100 state workers who may face layoffs.

The HSTA and UPW, meanwhile, amended their legal challenge against the Lingle administration on Monday by claiming that Lingle threatened layoffs in retaliation for the unions' attempt to stop her furlough plans in court.

Lingle at first warned that 10,000 state workers would lose their jobs if her furlough plans were blocked and then reduced the estimate to 2,500. Her layoff list contains more than 1,100 names but the administration has said more could be added later.