Regents of the University of California (Fried, et al.) (PERB 0829HA)

STATE 	OP 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OP 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CLIFF FRIED, et al. ,
Charging Parties,
v.
REGENTS 	OF 	THE 	UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CE-250-H
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	829-H
PERB Decision No. 	829a-H
September 	19, 	1990
Appearance: 	Cliff Fried, 	Representative 	for American Federation
of 	State, 	County and Municipal Employees.
Before Craib, 	Camilli and Cunningham, 	Members.
DECISION
CAMILLI, 	Member: 	Cliff Fried 	(Fried), 	representative for
the 	charging parties, 	requests 	reconsideration of PERB Decision
No. 	829-H, 	issued by the Public 	Employment Relations 	Board 	(PERB
or Board) 	on July 24, 	1990. 	Having duly considered the request
for reconsideration, 	the 	Board 	itself hereby denies 	the 	request
for the 	reasons 	that 	follow.
In PERB Decision No. 	82 9-H, 	the Board affirmed the proposed
decision of 	a PERB Administrative 	Law Judge 	(ALJ) 	which held that
the 	Regents 	of 	the 	University 	of 	California did 	not 	violate
section 	3571(a) 	and 	(b) 	of the Higher Education Employer-Employee
Relations Act 	(Act)1 but, 	rather, 	satisfied its obligation under
HEERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 	3560 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	are to the
Government Code. 	Section 3571 provides, 	in pertinent part:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
________________ )

the Act 	to meet 	and discuss 	concerning 	its 	decision to 	raise 	the
parking rates 	at the University of California, 	Los Angeles
campus.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32410(a)2 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.
The Board has held, 	based upon PERB Regulation 32410(a),
that 	reconsideration 	is 	not 	appropriate when a party merely
restates 	an 	argument 	previously 	considered 	and 	rejected 	by 	the
Board 	in 	its 	underlying decision. 	(California 	Faculty
Association 	(Wang) 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	692a-H, 	p. 	4; 	Tustin
Unified School District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	626a, 	p. 	3;
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for the higher 	education
employer to do 	any of 	the 	following:
(a) 	Impose or threaten to 	impose reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by this 	chapter. 	For purposes 	of
this 	subdivision, 	"employee" 	includes an
applicant 	for 	employment 	or 	reemployment.
(b) 	Deny to employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
2PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California Administrative
Code, 	title 8, 	section 31001 	et seq.
N	
2

Riverside Unified School District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	622a,
p. 	2.)
In his 	motion for reconsideration, 	Fried argues 	that neither
the American Federation of 	State, 	County and Municipal 	Employees
nor 	its 	members were notified or allowed to participate 	in a 	bond
process which occurred in 	1986, 	which, 	Fried argues, 	set the
stage 	for the violations 	alleged herein. 	Before 	the ALJ 	and 	in
his 	exceptions 	to the proposed decision, 	Fried claimed 	that 	the
signing of the 	1986 bond agreement was 	illegal, 	and/or that 	it
precluded 	the 	parties 	from 	engaging 	in 	good 	faith 	negotiations 	in
1989. 	The arguments 	raised 	in this 	request 	for reconsideration
merely 	reiterate 	arguments 	considered 	and 	rejected 	earlier, 	and
no 	newly-discovered 	evidence 	or 	law is 	cited therein. 	Therefore,
the 	representative 	for the 	charging parties 	has 	failed to
demonstrate 	extraordinary 	circumstances 	warranting
reconsideration.
ORDER
There 	being 	no proper 	grounds 	for reconsideration 	stated,
the request 	for reconsideration of PERB Decision No. 	829-H 	is
hereby 	DENIED.
Members 	Craib 	and Cunningham 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
33