Regents of the University of California Service (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) (PERB 0245HD)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
IN THE 	MATTER OF:
UNIT 	DETERMINATION 	FOR 	SERVICE
EMPLOYEES, 	LAWRENCE LIVERMORE
NATIONAL LABORATORY, 	OF THE
UNIVERSITY 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 	744 	OF THE
STATUTES 	OF 	1978 	(HIGHER
EDUCATION 	EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONS 	ACT)
Case Nos.
SF-RR-1002-H et al.
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	245b-H
PERB Decision No. 	245d-H
August 	19, 	1983
Appearances; 	Douglas H. Barton, Attorney 	(Corbett, 	Kane, Berk
& Barton) 	and James N. 	Odle, 	Associate Counsel for 	the Regents
of 	the 	University 	of California.
Before: 	Tovar, Jaeger, Morgenstern and Burt, Members.*
DECISION
Following 	the 	issuance 	of PERB Decision No. 	245b-H,l 	the
University of 	California 	(UC) 	filed 	with 	the Public Employment
Relations Board 	(PERB or Board) 	a 	request 	that 	the Board
reconsider 	its 	decision 	that Vehicle 	Dispatcher 	Laurel Taylor
is 	not 	a 	supervisor 	and 	is 	therefore 	a member 	of 	the Lawrence
Livermore National 	Laboratory 	service 	bargaining 	unit. 	No
employee 	organization 	filed 	a 	response.
*Chairperson Gluck 	did 	not participate 	in 	this Decision.
1In 	the Matter 	of: 	Unit 	Determination 	for 	Service
Employees, 	Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 	of 	the
University of California Pursuant 	to Chapter 	744 	of 	the
Statutes 	of 	1978 	(Higher 	Education Employer-Employee "Relations
Act) 	(3/8/83) 	PERB Decision No. 	245b-H.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)	______________ )

UC 	claims 	that 	extraordinary 	circumstances 	are 	present 	to
merit 	reconsideration 	within 	the 	meaning 	of 	PERB 	rule 	324102
because 	the 	Board 	erred 	in 	its 	interpretation 	of 	facts 	in 	the
hearing 	record. 	Specifically, 	UC 	argues 	that 	the 	record 	shows
2pERB 	rule 	32410 	pertains 	to 	reconsideration 	of 	Board
decisions 	and 	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. 	An
original 	and 	5 	copies 	of 	the 	request 	for
reconsideration 	shall 	be 	filed 	with 	the
Board 	itself 	in 	the 	headquarters 	office 	and
shall 	state 	with 	specificity 	the 	grounds
claimed 	and, 	where 	applicable, 	shall 	specify
the 	page 	of 	the 	record 	relied on. 	Service
and 	proof 	of 	service 	of 	the 	request 	pursuant
to 	Section 	32140 	are 	required. 	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.
(b) 	Any 	party 	shall 	have 	20 	days 	from
service 	to 	file 	a 	response 	to 	the 	request
for 	reconsideration. 	An original 	and 	5
copies 	of 	the 	response 	shall 	be 	filed 	with
the Board 	itself 	in 	the 	headquarters
office. 	Service 	and 	proof 	of 	service of 	the
response 	pursuant 	to Section 	32140 	are
required.
(c) 	The 	filing of a 	request 	for
reconsideration 	shall 	not 	operate 	to 	stay
the 	effectiveness 	of 	a 	decision 	of 	the Board
itself 	unless 	otherwise 	ordered 	by 	the 	Board
itself.
PERB 	rules 	are 	codified 	at 	California Administrative 	Code,
title 	8, 	section 	31001 	et 	seq.
22

that 	Taylor 	effectively 	recommends 	the 	hiring 	of 	employees 	into
her 	area, 	that 	she 	has 	significant 	influence on employee
evaluations, 	that 	it 	is 	irrelevant 	that Taylor 	has never
exercised 	her 	authority with 	regard 	to 	disciplinary matters,
that 	Taylor's 	duties 	with 	regard 	to work 	assignment 	and 	vacation
scheduling 	are 	not 	essentially clerical, 	and 	that Taylor 	has
effectively 	recommended 	the 	granting 	of merit 	increases 	to
employees 	and 	the 	promotion of 	another 	dispatcher. 	UC argues
that 	these 	duties 	create 	a 	potential 	conflict of 	interest with
other 	employees 	so 	that 	Taylor's work 	can 	not 	be 	found 	to be
substantially 	similar 	to 	that 	of 	her 	subordinates.
The 	Board 	previously considered 	all 	the 	facts 	in 	the 	record
and UC's 	arguments 	in PERB Decision No. 	245b-H, 	supra. 	UC has
not 	raised 	any new 	issues 	of 	fact or 	law, 	nor 	is 	the Board
convinced 	that 	it 	erred 	in 	its 	interpretation of 	the 	facts. 	For
these 	reasons 	the Board 	does 	not 	find 	extraordinary
circumstances 	and 	UC's 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	is 	denied.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	Decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the Public Employment Relations Board ORDERS 	that 	the
request 	for 	reconsideration 	of 	the 	exclusion of 	Laurel 	Taylor
from 	the 	Lawrence 	Livermore 	National 	Laboratory 	service
bargaining 	unit 	as 	supervisory, 	filed 	by 	the University of
California, 	is 	DENIED for 	failure 	to show extraordinary
circumstances.
By 	the BOARD
33