Los Angeles County Education Association, CTA/NEA (Burton) (PERB 1358EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LILLIAN H. 	BURTON,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	COUNTY EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CO-793
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	1358
PERB Decision No. 	1358a
February 	11, 	2000
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Lillian H. 	Burton, 	on her own behalf; 	John F. 	Kohn,
Negotiations 	and Organizational 	Development 	Specialist, 	for
Los Angeles 	County Education Association, 	CTA/NEA.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Dyer and Amador, 	Members.
DECISION
DYER, 	Member: 	This 	case 	comes before 	the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on a motion 	for reconsideration
filed by Lillian H. 	Burton 	(Burton) 	of 	the Board's 	decision in
Lillian H. 	Burton v. 	Los Angeles 	County Education Association.
CTA/NEA 	(1999) 	PERB Decision No. 	1358 	(LACEA).1 In that decision
the 	Board adopted 	the 	Board agent's 	dismissal 	of 	Burton's 	charge
alleging 	that 	Los Angeles 	County Education Association, 	CTA/NEA
(Association) 	violated section 3543.6(b) 	of 	the Educational
Employment 	Relations Act 	(EERA)2 by not 	representing her when she
1The Board notes 	that 	the pleading 	filed by Burton 	is 	not
titled as a motion for reconsideration. 	However, 	in light 	of 	the
fact 	that 	the 	document was 	filed within 	the 	time period 	for
reconsideration, 	and that 	the arguments presented 	in this
document 	ask the Board to 	reevaluate 	its prior decision, 	we
address 	it 	as 	a motion for reconsideration.
2EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3543.6 provides, 	in relevant part:

was ordered to leave the campus on September 22, 	1998, 	due to her
failure 	to 	comply with the 	Los Angeles 	County Office 	of 	Education
procedures 	regarding a 	return 	from medical 	leave.
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
employees because 	of 	their exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter.
After reviewing 	the 	entire 	record, 	including Burton's
request 	and the Association's 	response, 	the Board hereby denies
the 	request 	for 	reconsideration.
DISCUSSION
In LACEA. 	the Board concluded that 	Burton's 	charge 	did not
state a prima 	facie 	case. 	Reconsideration requests 	are 	governed
by PERB Regulation 32410(a),3 which states:
(a) 	Any party to a decision of 	the Board
itself may, 	because of 	extraordinary
circumstances, 	file a request 	to reconsider
the 	decision within 20 	days 	following 	the
date of service of 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.
On November 22, 	1999, 	Burton filed the 	instant 	request
3PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section 31001 et 	seq. 	A revision of 	PERB
Regulation 32410 became effective January 3, 	2000, 	subsequent to
the 	filing 	of 	this 	request. 	The 	revision has no bearing on 	the
Board's 	consideration in this 	case.
22

seeking reconsideration of 	the Board's 	decision in LACEA. 	The
request 	consists 	of 	an eight 	page 	document 	in which Burton
reargues 	facts 	previously 	introduced and 	ruled upon by 	the 	Board.
In an attachment 	to this 	document, 	Burton also presents a letter
from Andrea Wakefield 	(Wakefield), 	representative 	for the
Association. 	The 	letter 	states 	that Wakefield did not meet 	with
school 	officials 	on Burton's 	behalf 	as 	an Association
representative on either September 22 	or 23, 	1998. 	Burton claims
that 	the Board agent's dismissal 	letter, 	adopted by the Board in
LACEA. 	indicates 	that Wakefield provided assistance 	to Burton
"during and after the meeting" 	of September 22, 	1998. 	Burton
claims 	that 	this 	constitutes prejudicial 	error of 	fact.
The 	grounds 	offered by Burton do not 	constitute 	grounds 	for
reconsideration pursuant 	to 	PERB Regulation 32410. 	In reviewing
requests 	for reconsideration, 	the Board has 	strictly applied 	the
limited grounds 	included 	in that 	regulation, 	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; 	Fall River Joint Unified School District 	(1998) 	PERB
Decision No. 	1259a.) 	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;
33

California State Employees Association. 	Local 	1000 	(Janowicz)
(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1043a-S; 	California Faculty Association
(Wang) 	(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	692a-H; 	Tustin Unified School
District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	626a; 	Riverside Unified School
District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	622a.)
Therefore, 	the portion of Burton's 	request which restates
matters 	considered previously by 	the 	Board must 	be 	rejected.
With regard to 	the Wakefield letter, 	while 	the description
of 	the 	assistance provided by Wakefield 	included 	in 	the 	dismissal
letter may not be precise, 	it 	evidences no prejudicial 	error of
fact 	that would 	cause us 	to 	reconsider our decision.
The Board concludes 	that 	Burton's 	request 	fails 	to 	comply
with PERB Regulation 32410.
ORDER
Lillian H. 	Burton's 	request 	for 	reconsideration of 	the
Board's 	decision in Lillian H. 	Burton v. 	Los Angeles 	County
Education 	Association. 	CTA/NEA 	(1999) 	PERB Decision No. 	1358 	is
hereby DENIED.
Chairman 	Caffrey and Member Amador 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
44