State of California (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by multiple decisions, as recognized in State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2024) PERB Decision No. 2926-S, pp. 16-19 * * * (PERB 0734SA)

* * * OVERRULED IN PART by multiple decisions, as recognized in State of
California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2024) PERB
Decision No. 2926-S, pp. 16-19 * * *
STATE 	OP 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	DEPARTMENT OF 	FORESTRY
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	(CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF 	FORESTRY AND FIRE
PROTECTION),
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CE-392-S
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	734-S
PERB Decision No. 	734a-S
August 	24, 	1939
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Department 	of 	Personnel Administration by 	Roy J.
Chastain, 	Labor Relations Counsel, 	for State of California
(California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection).
Before Hesse, Chairperson; 	Porter, Craib, 	Shank, and Camilli,
Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	The California Department of Forestry
and 	Fire 	Protection 	(Forestry) 	requests 	reconsideration of 	PERB
Decision No. 	734-S, 	issued by the Public 	Employment Relations
Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on May 3, 	1989. 	In that decision, 	the
Board 	affirmed 	the 	Board 	agent's 	dismissal 	of 	the 	allegation 	that
Forestry 	interfered with the employees' 	rights 	in violation of
section 3519(a) 	of the the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act).1 With
Ralph1Ralph 	C. 	Dills Act 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section
3512 	et 	seq. 	Unless otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory
references herein are to the Government Code. 	Section 	3519
provides, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall be unlawful 	for the 	state to:
(a) 	Impose or threaten to impose reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against employees, 	or otherwise
________________ )

regard 	to 	the 	allegation 	that 	Forestry 	interfered with 	the 	rights
of 	the California Department 	of 	Forestry Employees Association
(Association), 	the Board reversed the Board agent's dismissal and
found that 	the 	alleged 	statement 	stated 	a prima 	facie 	case 	that
Forestry 	interfered with the rights 	of 	the Association. 	The
Board 	ordered 	that 	the 	General 	Counsel 	issue 	a 	complaint 	alleging
a violation of 	section 3519(b) 	of the Dills Act.
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter.
(b) 	Deny to employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed to 	them by this 	chapter.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32410(a) 	states, 	in pertinent part:
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.
In its 	request 	for reconsideration, 	Forestry asserts 	that
the 	Board's 	decision contains 	an error of law, 	because the Board
failed to address: 	(1) 	whether the section 3519(b) 	allegation
was 	a 	separate allegation from the 	section 3519(a) 	allegation;
and 	(2) 	whether the 	section 	3519(b) 	allegation should be deferred
22

to 	final 	and binding 	arbitration.2 Forestry 	fails 	to 	allege 	that
the 	Board's 	decision contains 	either prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact
or newly discovered evidence or law. 	Rather, 	Forestry argues
that 	the 	Board 	failed to 	apply 	the 	strong policy 	of 	deferral 	to
arbitration under the Dills Act 	and pursuant to 	the 	Board's
decision in Lake Elsinore 	School 	District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision
No. 	646. 	As 	Forestry's 	arguments do not constitute grounds 	for
reconsideration under PERB Regulation 32410(a), 	the request 	for
reconsideration must 	be 	denied.
ORDER
The 	request by State 	of California 	(Department 	of 	Forestry
and 	Fire 	Protection) 	that 	the 	Board grant reconsideration of 	PERB
Decision No. 	734-S is DENIED.
Members Porter, 	Craib, 	Shank, 	and Camilli joined in this
Decision.
2The 	Board 	found that 	the 	alleged 	statement, 	wherein
Forestry threatened that there would not be a 	contract, 	states 	a
prima facie violation of 	section 3519(b), 	independent of 	section
3519(a). 	As 	the allegation that Forestry 	interfered with the
rights 	of 	the 	employee organization 	is 	not 	covered by an
---------applicable provision in the parties' 	collective bargaining
agreement, 	this allegation is 	not 	subject to deferral to
arbitration.
33