Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (PERB 0308HA)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES'
ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA 	(BERKELEY),
Respondent.
Case No. 	SF-CE-20-H
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	308-H
PERB Decision No. 	308a-H
June 29, 	1984
Appearances; 	Philip E. 	Callis, 	Attorney for California State
Employees' 	Association; 	Gerald A. 	Becker, Attorney for The
Regents 	of 	the 	University of California.
Before Hesse, Chairperson; Morgenstern and Burt, Members.
DECISION
MORGENSTERN, 	Member: 	The Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board), 	having duly considered the request for
reconsideration1
' 	filed by 	the California 	State Employees'
Association 	(CSEA), 	hereby denies that request.
1PERB 	Rules 	are 	codified 	at California Administrative
Code, 	title 	8, 	section 31001 et seq. 	PERB rule 32410(a)
provides:
Any party 	to a 	decision of 	the Board 	itself
may, 	because of extraordinary circumstances,
file a 	request 	to reconsider 	the decision
. . . . 	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.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________)

DISCUSSION
In 	the underlying decision, 	the Board held 	that 	the 	Regents
of the
of California (University) did not violate
provisions 	of 	the 	Higher 	Education 	Employer-Employee 	Relations
Act 	(HEERA)2 by refusing 	to permit an employee utilizing 	the
grievance or 	administrative 	review procedures 	to be 	accompanied
by more 	than one 	representative. 	The Board held 	that 	the
record 	failed 	to 	demonstrate 	that 	the 	University's
one-representative 	rule caused harm to 	individual 	employees,
was 	inherently destructive of HEERA, 	or 	tended 	to harm
protected 	rights.
In 	its 	reconsideration request, 	CSEA merely reargues 	the
factual 	and 	legal 	conclusions 	it 	unsuccessfully 	asserted 	in 	the
underlying 	case. 	Such previously 	addressed contentions 	fail 	to
demonstrate 	the 	necessary extraordinary circumstances. 	Rio
Hondo Community College District 	(5/16/83) 	PERB Decision No.
279a; 	Oakland Unified School District 	(12/31/82) 	PERB Decision
No. 	236a; 	Redlands Unified School District 	(11/15/82) 	PERB
Decision No. 	235a; 	Livermore Valley Joint Unified School
District 	(10/21/81) 	PERB Order No. 	JR-9. 	Accordingly, CSEA's
request 	for 	reconsideration 	is 	denied.
2 HEERA 	is codified at Government Code 	section 3560 	et 	seq.
NV	2

ORDER
The Board DENIES 	the 	request for 	reconsideration of PERB
Decision No. 	308-H.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member 	Burt 	joined 	in 	this Decision.
33