Coachella Valley Unified School District (PERB 1303EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
PHILIP A. 	KOK,
Charging Party,
v.
COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-3822
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB 	Decision No. 	1303
PERB Decision No. 	1303a
March 11, 	1999
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Philip A. 	Kok, 	on his own behalf; Atkinson,
Andelson, 	Loya, 	Ruud & Romo by Sherry G. 	Gordon, 	Attorney, 	for
Coachella Valley Unified 	School 	District.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Dyer and Amador, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Chairman: 	This case is before the Public
Employment Relations Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on a request by
Philip A. 	Kok 	(Kok) 	that the Board reconsider 	its decision in
Coachella Valley Unified 	School 	District 	(1998) 	PERB Decision
No. 	1303 	(Coachella VUSD). 	In Coachella VUSD, 	the Board denied
Kok's 	appeal 	of 	a Board agent's dismissal 	of his unfair practice
charge 	and 	concluded that 	the 	Coachella Valley Unified 	School
District 	did not violate the 	Educational 	Employment Relations Act
(EERA)1 by failing to process 	a grievance to arbitration and by
retaliating 	against 	him 	for his 	participation 	in protected
activities.
JEERA 	is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
____________ )

DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 	324102 permits 	any party to a decision of
the 	Board 	itself 	to 	request 	the 	Board to 	reconsider 	that
decision. 	It 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.
The 	Board has 	strictly 	applied these 	limited grounds 	in
considering 	reconsideration 	requests 	specifically 	to 	avoid 	the
use 	of 	the reconsideration process 	to 	reargue 	or relitigate
issues which have 	already been decided. 	(Redwoods 	Community
College District 	(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1047a; 	State of
California 	(Department of Corrections) 	(1995) 	PERB Decision
No. 	ll00a-S.) 	Similarly, 	reconsideration will not be granted
based on 	a 	claim of 	an alleged prejudicial 	error 	of 	law.
(Jamestown Elementary School 	District 	(1989) 	PERB Order
No. 	Ad-187a.) 	In numerous request for reconsideration cases, 	the
Board has 	declined 	to 	reconsider matters 	previously 	offered 	by
the parties 	and rejected 	in the underlying decision. 	(California
State University 	(1995) 	PERB Decision No. 	1093a-H; 	California
State Employees Association, 	Local 1000 	(Janowicz) 	(1994) 	PERB
Decision No. 	1043a-S; 	California Faculty Association 	(Wang)
2PERB regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq. 	A revision to PERB
Regulation 	32410 	became 	effective 	in 	February 	1999 	subsequent to
the 	filing of 	this 	request 	for reconsideration. 	The revision has
no bearing on the Board's 	consideration of 	this request.
22

(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	692a-H; 	Tustin Unified School District
(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	626a; 	Riverside Unified School District
(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	622a.)
On January 5, 	1999, 	Kok filed the 	instant request 	seeking
reconsideration of the Board's decision 	in Coachella VUSD. 	Kok
makes 	no 	assertions 	that 	the 	Board's 	decision 	contains
prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact, 	or that he has 	found newly discovered
evidence or 	law. 	(Regents 	of the University of 	California 	(1998)
PERB Decision No. 	1271-H at p. 	3.) 	All of the relevant
information 	included 	in 	this 	reconsideration request was 	included
in the appeal 	in the underlying case, 	and has already been
considered by the Board. 	Therefore, 	Kok's request 	fails to
demonstrate 	grounds 	for 	reconsideration 	sufficient 	to 	comply with
PERB Regulation 	32410.
ORDER
The 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	in 	Coachella Valley Unified
School District 	(1998) 	PERB Decision No. 	1303 	is hereby DENIED.
Members 	Dyer 	and Amador 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
33