Lindsay Teachers Association (Gonzalez) (PERB 0935EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LETICIA GONZALEZ,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LINDSAY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
) 	Case No. 	S-CO-267
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	935
PERB Decision No. 	935a
July 16, 	1992
)
)
)
)
.)
Appearances: 	Bourdette 	and Partners 	by Allen Broslovsky,
Attorney, 	for Leticia Gonzalez; 	California Teachers Association
by Ramon E. 	Romero, 	Attorney, 	and Michael Engel, 	Law Clerk, 	for
Lindsay 	Teachers 	Association.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Camilli and Caffrey, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on a 	request 	for reconsideration
filed by Leticia Gonzalez 	(Gonzalez) 	of the Board's 	decision 	in
Lindsay Teachers Association 	(Gonzalez) 	(1992) 	PERB Decision
No. 	935. 	In that decision the Board denied Gonzalez's 	appeal of
a 	Board 	agent's 	dismissal 	of 	her unfair practice 	charge 	on 	the
grounds 	that 	she had 	failed to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case of 	a
violation of 	the duty of 	fair representation by the 	Lindsay
Teachers 	Association.
DISCUSSION
In her request for reconsideration, 	Gonzalez, 	who was 	in pro
per in her appeal, 	contends that the fact that she is now
represented by 	counsel will 	allow her to 	"present her 	charges 	in
a 	more 	focused manner" 	and provide 	the 	Board with new evidence.
)
)
)
)

Gonzalez 	argues 	that her 	"charges were not 	fully and 	fairly
decided on its 	(sic) 	merits" 	by the Board agent because the
numerous 	notes 	and 	exhibits 	she 	submitted were 	unorganized 	and
difficult to review. 	Gonzalez 	further contends 	that the 	Board,
in denying her appeal, 	conducted only 	"a 	cursory review" 	of 	the
Board 	agent's 	warning and dismissal 	letters 	and 	reviewed 	no 	other
material 	she had 	submitted which 	"violated her due process 	rights
and 	constitutes 	an abuse of discretion."
PE
PERB Regulation section 32410(a)1 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.
Failure by a party to present a well 	organized case to a 	Board
agent, 	or on appeal to the Board, 	does not constitute appropriate
grounds 	under which 	that party may request 	reconsideration.
Furthermore, 	while Gonzalez 	contends 	that her counsel will
provide 	the 	Board with 	new evidence 	if 	reconsideration 	is
granted, 	no 	such evidence 	is 	cited 	in 	support of 	the request 	for
reconsideration. 	Therefore, 	Gonzalez's 	request that the Board
grant 	reconsideration now that 	she 	has 	retained 	counsel 	to 	help
present her case 	is 	rejected.
In his 	dismissal 	letter, 	the Board agent 	indicates 	that 	he
considere
RB
d 	the 	numerous 	notes 	and 	exhibits 	Gonzalez 	submitted
Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 	et seq.
N	2

with her amended 	charge. 	Because 	of 	the disorganization of 	the
material 	and 	the difficulty 	in determining 	its 	relevance 	to
Gonzalez's 	charges, 	the Board agent concluded that Gonzalez 	had
failed to meet 	the 	requirements 	of 	PERB 	Regulation 	326152
and dismissed the allegations, 	if any, 	contained in the material.
The 	failure 	of 	a 	charging party to 	comply with 	Board 	regulations
governing unfair practice proceedings 	does 	not provide 	support
for 	the 	contention that 	the 	unfair practice 	charge 	allegations
were 	not 	fully 	considered by a 	Board agent. 	Therefore,
Gonzalez's 	argument to this 	effect 	is 	rejected.
Finally, 	Gonzalez 	is 	incorrect 	in asserting that the Board
reviewed 	only 	the 	Board 	agent's warning 	and dismissal 	letters 	and
no 	other documents 	in considering her appeal. 	In Santa 	Clara
Unified School District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	104, 	the Board
discussed 	its 	authority 	and 	responsibility 	in 	considering
appeals, 	indicating that 	"the Board 	is 	required to consider the
entire 	record 	including the 	totality of 	testimony offered, 	and 	is
2PERB Regulation section 32615(a) 	(5) 	states, 	in pertinent
part:
(a) 	A charge may be 	filed alleging that an
unfair practice 	or practices 	have been
committed. 	The 	charge 	shall be 	in writing,
signed under penalty 	of perjury by the party
or 	its 	agent with the declaration that 	the
charge is true, 	and complete to the best of
the 	charging party's 	knowledge 	and belief,
and 	contain the 	following 	information:
(5) 	A clear and concise 	statement of 	the
facts 	and 	conduct 	alleged 	to 	constitute 	an
unfair practice;
33

free 	to 	draw 	its 	own and perhaps 	contrary 	inferences 	from the
evidence presented." 	The 	Board 	considered the 	entire 	record 	in
this 	case. 	Therefore, 	Gonzalez's 	contention that the Board
abused 	its 	discretion by 	failing 	to 	consider material 	submitted
by Gonzalez 	is without merit and 	is 	rejected.
ORDER
The request 	for reconsideration in PERB Decision No. 	935 	is
hereby 	DENIED.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member Camilli 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
4