California State University (California Faculty Association) (PERB A177HA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	UNIVERSITY,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive Representative.
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-M-1890-H
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-177-H
PERB Order No. 	Ad-177a-H
February 15, 	1989
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Reich, 	Adell & Crost by Glenn Rothner, 	Attorney,
for 	the California Faculty Association; 	William B. 	Haughton,
Attorney, 	for the California State 	University.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Craib and Shank, 	Members.
DECISION
SHANK, 	Member: 	California Faculty Association 	(CFA)
requests 	reconsideration of PERB Order No. 	Ad-177-H 	issued
December 	16, 	1988. 	In that Order, 	the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or 	Board) 	affirmed an administrative
determination by 	a 	PERB regional 	director 	finding 	that 	the
parties 	reached 	an 	impasse 	in meeting 	and 	conferring on 	parking
fees.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32410(a)1 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.
PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified at California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.

In 	its request 	for reconsideration, 	CFA asserts 	that the
Board Order 	contains prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact. 	CFA then
proceeds 	to restate 	its 	argument previously 	considered 	and
rejected 	in the 	earlier 	appeal.
On numerous 	occasions, 	the Board has held that the mere
restating 	of 	arguments 	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 	CFA raises 	no
new issues 	of 	fact or law, 	but merely restates 	arguments made 	in
its 	appeal 	of 	the 	administrative determination, 	reconsideration
is 	not appropriate. 	In the underlying administrative
determination, 	the 	Board 	found that the regional 	director 	fairly
and 	reasonably weighed 	the 	enumerated 	factor 	set 	forth 	in 	PERB
Regulation 32 793(c)2 and we made no additional 	findings of 	fact.
The 	majority 	of 	the 	Board 	further 	found 	there 	had been 	no
apparent abuse 	of discretion by the regional 	director. 	CFA's
2PERB Regulation section 	32793(c) 	states:
In determining whether an impasse exists, 	the
Board 	shall 	investigate 	and may 	consider 	the
number 	and 	length 	of 	negotiating 	sessions
between the parties, 	the time period over
which the negotiations have occurred, 	the
extent 	to which the 	parties 	have made 	and
discussed 	counter-proposals 	to 	each other,
the 	extent to which the parties 	have 	reached
tentative 	agreement 	on 	issues 	during 	the
negotiations, 	the 	extend to which unresolved
issues remain, 	and other relevant data.
22

claims 	of 	prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact related to the
administrative 	determination 	have 	already been 	thoroughly
reviewed by the 	Board 	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 Order No. 	Ad-177-H 	is
hereby 	DENIED.
Chairperson 	Hesse 	and Member Craib 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
33