United Teachers-Los Angeles (Moszkowski) (PERB 0946EA)

STATE 	OP 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LENA 	IGGERS 	MOSZKOWSKI,
Charging 	Party,
v.
UNITED TEACHERS 	- 	LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CO-583
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	946
PERB Decision No. 	946a
September 11, 	1992
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Lena Iggers Moszkowski, 	on her own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson, 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on request 	for reconsideration
filed by Lena 	Iggers 	Moszkowski 	(Moszkowski) 	of the Board's
decision in United Teachers 	- Los Angeles 	(Moszkowski) 	(1992)
PERB Decision No. 	946. 	In that decision, 	the Board affirmed the
Board agent's 	dismissal 	of 	the unfair practice 	charge 	on the
grounds 	that Moszkowski 	failed to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	that
United Teachers 	- 	Los Angeles 	(UTLA) 	breached the duty of 	fair
representation 	in violation of 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA) 	section 3543.6(b).1 Having duly considered
LEERA 	is 	codified at Government Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	Section 3 543.6 	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

the request 	for reconsideration, 	the Board denies 	Moszkowski's
request 	for the reasons 	that 	follow.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32410(a)2 states, 	in pertinent part:
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.
In her request 	for reconsideration, 	Moszkowski 	contends,
that 	because 	UTLA 	failed 	to 	respond 	to her 	appeal 	to 	the 	Board,
the allegations 	are 	to be 	taken as 	true 	and 	cannot be 	challenged.
Therefore, 	Moszkowski argues 	that 	she 	should prevail.
This 	contention is 	simply incorrect. 	There 	is 	no
requirement 	that parties 	to 	actions 	before 	the 	Board 	respond 	to
arguments presented by opposing 	interests. 	In order to 	state a
prima 	facie violation of EERA section 3543.6(b), 	the charging
party must 	show that 	the 	exclusive 	representative's 	conduct was
arbitrary, 	discriminatory, 	or in bad faith. 	(United Teachers 	of
Los Angeles 	(Collins) 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	258.) 	Based upon
discriminate against employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their exercise of 	rights
guaranteed by this 	chapter.
2PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
22

the 	information 	submitted to 	the 	Board agent, 	Moszkowski 	failed
to meet this burden.
Moszkowski 	also argues 	that 	she did not have 	the
opportunity 	to appear before 	the Board to 	argue her case.
Moszkowski 	has 	misinterpreted the 	term 	"Appearances" 	as 	used
in PERB Decision No. 	946 	to mean that the Board heard oral
argument 	in this 	case without 	notifying Moszkowski.
"Appearances" 	in this 	context 	is 	simply meant to describe all
parties 	who 	have presented 	evidence 	to 	the 	Board 	for 	its
consideration. 	No oral 	argument was 	heard 	in this 	case.
Further, 	PERB Regulation 32315 	states:
A party desiring 	to 	argue 	orally 	before 	the
Board 	itself 	regarding 	the 	exceptions 	to 	the
proposed decision 	shall 	file, 	with the
statement 	of 	exceptions 	or the 	response 	to
the 	statement of exceptions, 	a written
request 	stating the 	reasons 	for the 	request.
Upon 	such request 	or 	its 	own motion the 	Board
itself may direct oral argument.
(Emphasis 	added.)
PERB Decision No. 	946 was 	a review of a dismissal by a 	Board
agent. 	As 	PERB Regulation 	32315 does 	not provide 	for oral
argument 	on review of dismissals, 	the Board 	finds 	this 	argument
without merit.
Accordingly, 	Moszkowski has 	failed to demonstrate
appropriate grounds 	for reconsideration of PERB Decision No. 	946.
ORDER
There being no proper grounds 	for reconsideration 	stated,
the request 	for reconsideration of PERB Decision No. 	946 	is
hereby 	DENIED.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member Caffrey 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
33