Riverside Unified School District (PERB 0622EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD	
C)
TONY 	PETRICH,
Charging 	Party,
v.
RIVERSIDE UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case Nos. 	LA-CE-2112
LA-CE-2130
LA-CE-2134
LA-CE-2143
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	622
PERB Decision No. 	622a
August 	31, 	1987
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance; 	Tony Petrich, 	on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter and Craib, 	Members.
DECISION
CRAIB, 	Member: 	Charging 	Party 	Tony 	Petrich 	requests
reconsideration of PERB Decision No. 	622, 	issued June 11, 	1987.
In 	that 	Decision, 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB or
Board) 	affirmed 	a proposed decision 	of 	a 	PERB administrative 	law
judge 	(ALJ) 	finding 	that 	Charging 	Party 	failed 	to establish 	any
violation of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA).1
Specifically, 	in Case Nos. 	LA-CE-2112, 	LA-CE-2130 and LA-CE-2143,
the 	Board 	affirmed 	the 	ALJ's 	decision 	that 	Charging 	Party had
failed 	to 	establish a 	prima 	facie 	violation 	in his 	case 	in
chief. 	In 	Case No. 	LA-CE-2134 	(in which 	the 	Respondent 	was
required 	to present evidence), 	the Board 	affirmed the ALJ's
conclusion 	that 	no 	threat had occurred 	at 	an August 	23, 	1984
meeting 	concerning 	Respondent 	Riverside 	Unified 	School 	District's
1The 	EERA 	is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 	3540, 	et
seq.

desire 	to change 	Charging 	Party's 	starting 	time. 	However, 	the
Board 	found 	it 	unnecessary to 	consider, 	assuming arguendo 	that 	a
threat 	occurred, 	whether 	such 	threat was 	in 	response 	to protected
activity. 	The Board, 	therefore, 	declined to adopt that portion
of 	the ALJ's 	analysis.
DISCUSSION
PERB 	Regulation 	32410(a)2 states, 	in pertinent part:
The 	grounds 	for 	requesting 	reconsideration
are 	limited 	to 	claims 	that 	the 	decision 	of
the 	Board 	itself 	contains 	prejudicial 	errors
of 	fact, 	or 	newly discovered evidence 	or 	law
which 	was 	not 	previously 	available 	and 	could
not 	have 	been 	discovered 	with 	the 	exercise
of 	reasonable diligence.
In his 	request 	for 	reconsideration, 	Charging 	Party begins by
asserting 	that 	the 	Board's 	Decision 	contains 	prejudicial 	errors
of 	fact 	and 	law. 	He 	then proceeds 	to 	reargue 	essentially 	the
entire 	case, 	reiterating points 	raised 	in his 	earlier 	appeal 	of
the 	ALJ's 	proposed decision.
On 	numerous 	occasions 	the 	Board has 	held 	that 	the 	mere
restating 	of 	argument 	previously 	considered 	and 	rejected 	by 	the
Board 	in 	the 	underlying 	decision 	does 	not 	constitute 	a proper
ground 	for 	reconsideration. 	See, 	e.g., 	Riverside 	Unified 	School
District 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	562a, 	Rio Hondo Community
College 	District 	(1983) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	279a. 	As 	Charging
Party 	raises 	no new 	issue 	of 	fact 	or 	law, 	but 	instead merely
2PERB Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
22

restates 	arguments 	made 	in his 	appeal 	of 	the 	proposed 	decision,
reconsideration 	is 	not appropriate. 	In 	the 	underlying 	Decision,
we 	found 	the ALJ's 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law 	to be
free 	of prejudicial 	error 	and 	we 	made 	or 	reached 	no additional
findings 	of 	fact or 	conclusions 	of 	law. 	Charging 	Party's 	claims
of prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact and law, 	therefore, 	necessarily
relate 	to the 	proposed decision, 	which has 	already been
thoroughly 	reviewed 	in 	the 	underlying 	Decision. 	We have 	thus
previously 	considered 	and 	rejected 	these 	claims.
ORDER
There 	being no proper 	grounds 	for 	reconsideration 	stated, 	the
request 	for 	reconsideration 	of 	PERB Decision No. 	622 	is hereby
DENIED.
Chairperson 	Hesse 	and Member 	Porter 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
33

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD	
C)
TONY 	PETRICH,
Charging 	Party,
v.
RIVERSIDE UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case Nos. 	LA-CE-2112
LA-CE-2130
LA-CE-2134
LA-CE-2143
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	622
PERB Decision No. 	622a
August 	31, 	1987
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance; 	Tony Petrich, 	on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter and Craib, 	Members.
DECISION
CRAIB, 	Member: 	Charging 	Party 	Tony 	Petrich 	requests
reconsideration of PERB Decision No. 	622, 	issued June 11, 	1987.
In 	that 	Decision, 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB or
Board) 	affirmed 	a proposed decision 	of 	a 	PERB administrative 	law
judge 	(ALJ) 	finding 	that 	Charging 	Party 	failed 	to establish 	any
violation of 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA).1
Specifically, 	in Case Nos. 	LA-CE-2112, 	LA-CE-2130 and LA-CE-2143,
the 	Board 	affirmed 	the 	ALJ's 	decision 	that 	Charging 	Party had
failed 	to 	establish a 	prima 	facie 	violation 	in his 	case 	in
chief. 	In 	Case No. 	LA-CE-2134 	(in which 	the 	Respondent 	was
required 	to present evidence), 	the Board 	affirmed the ALJ's
conclusion 	that 	no 	threat had occurred 	at 	an August 	23, 	1984
meeting 	concerning 	Respondent 	Riverside 	Unified 	School 	District's
1The 	EERA 	is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 	3540, 	et
seq.

desire 	to change 	Charging 	Party's 	starting 	time. 	However, 	the
Board 	found 	it 	unnecessary to 	consider, 	assuming arguendo 	that 	a
threat 	occurred, 	whether 	such 	threat was 	in 	response 	to protected
activity. 	The Board, 	therefore, 	declined to adopt that portion
of 	the ALJ's 	analysis.
DISCUSSION
PERB 	Regulation 	32410(a)2 states, 	in pertinent part:
The 	grounds 	for 	requesting 	reconsideration
are 	limited 	to 	claims 	that 	the 	decision 	of
the 	Board 	itself 	contains 	prejudicial 	errors
of 	fact, 	or 	newly discovered evidence 	or 	law
which 	was 	not 	previously 	available 	and 	could
not 	have 	been 	discovered 	with 	the 	exercise
of 	reasonable diligence.
In his 	request 	for 	reconsideration, 	Charging 	Party begins by
asserting 	that 	the 	Board's 	Decision 	contains 	prejudicial 	errors
of 	fact 	and 	law. 	He 	then proceeds 	to 	reargue 	essentially 	the
entire 	case, 	reiterating points 	raised 	in his 	earlier 	appeal 	of
the 	ALJ's 	proposed decision.
On 	numerous 	occasions 	the 	Board has 	held 	that 	the 	mere
restating 	of 	argument 	previously 	considered 	and 	rejected 	by 	the
Board 	in 	the 	underlying 	decision 	does 	not 	constitute 	a proper
ground 	for 	reconsideration. 	See, 	e.g., 	Riverside 	Unified 	School
District 	(1986) 	PERB Decision No. 	562a, 	Rio Hondo Community
College 	District 	(1983) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	279a. 	As 	Charging
Party 	raises 	no new 	issue 	of 	fact 	or 	law, 	but 	instead merely
2PERB Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
22

restates 	arguments 	made 	in his 	appeal 	of 	the 	proposed 	decision,
reconsideration 	is 	not appropriate. 	In 	the 	underlying 	Decision,
we 	found 	the ALJ's 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law 	to be
free 	of prejudicial 	error 	and 	we 	made 	or 	reached 	no additional
findings 	of 	fact or 	conclusions 	of 	law. 	Charging 	Party's 	claims
of prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact and law, 	therefore, 	necessarily
relate 	to the 	proposed decision, 	which has 	already been
thoroughly 	reviewed 	in 	the 	underlying 	Decision. 	We have 	thus
previously 	considered 	and 	rejected 	these 	claims.
ORDER
There 	being no proper 	grounds 	for 	reconsideration 	stated, 	the
request 	for 	reconsideration 	of 	PERB Decision No. 	622 	is hereby
DENIED.
Chairperson 	Hesse 	and Member 	Porter 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
33