California State Employees Association (Garcia) (PERB 1014SA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
JUDY K. 	GARCIA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
) 	Case No. 	S-CO-150-S
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	1014-S
PERB Decision No. 	1014a-S
November 16, 	1993
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Judy K. 	Garcia, 	on her own behalf; 	James W.
Milbradt, 	Statewide Arbitration Coordinator 	for California State
Employees Association.
Before Caffrey, 	Carlyle and Garcia, 	Members.
DECISION
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on a request 	for reconsideration
filed by the 	California State 	Employees Association 	(CSEA) 	of 	the
Board's 	decision 	in California State 	Employees Association
(Garcia) 	(1993) 	PERB Decision No. 	1014-S. 	In that decision, 	the
Board 	reversed 	the 	Board agent's 	dismissal 	and 	found 	that 	Judy
Garcia 	(Garcia) 	had stated a prima 	facie violation of 	section
3519.5(b) 	of the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act)1 by alleging that
1The Dills Act 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3512
et seq. 	Section 3519.5 states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(b) 	Impose or threaten to 	impose reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
)
)

CSEA retaliated against 	her and 	refused 	to 	grant 	a 	hearing 	on her
suspension 	in response 	to 	filing an unfair labor practice 	charge
with 	the 	Board.
employees because of 	their exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter.
In its 	request 	for reconsideration, 	which is 	opposed by
Garcia, 	CSEA provides 	copies 	of memos 	allegedly showing 	that 	a
hearing panel 	had been 	selected 	for Garcia and 	that 	the 	charge
leading 	to Garcia's 	suspension had been withdrawn.
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 of 	law
which was 	not 	previously available 	and 	could
not 	have been discovered with 	the 	exercise 	of
reasonable 	diligence.
CSEA admits 	the 	evidence 	it 	submits 	in its 	reconsideration
request was 	located within its 	own 	files. 	As 	CSEA had access 	to
this material 	when this 	case was before 	the Board agent 	and the
Board, 	the 	evidence presented in its 	reconsideration request
cannot 	be 	classified as 	newly discovered 	evidence which was 	not
previously available 	and 	could not 	have 	been discovered with 	the
exercise 	of 	reasonable diligence.
Based upon the 	foregoing, 	CSEA has 	failed to demonstrate
sufficient 	grounds 	for 	its 	reconsideration 	request.
2PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
22

ORDER
The 	request 	for 	reconsideration of 	California 	State
Employees Association 	(Garcia) 	(1993) 	PERB Decision No. 	1014-S 	is
hereby 	DENIED.
Members 	Caffrey and Garcia 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
W
	3