North Orange County Community College District (PERB 1268EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ELIZABETH 	KISZELY,
Charging Party,
v.
NORTH ORANGE 	COUNTY 	COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-3837
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	1268
PERB Decision No. 	1268a
August 	14, 	1998
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Elizabeth Kiszely, 	on her own behalf; 	Parker,
Covert 	& Chidester by Margaret A. 	Chidester, 	Attorney, 	for North
Orange 	County 	Community 	College 	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
Elizabeth Kiszely 	(Kiszely) 	that 	the Board reconsider 	its
decision 	in North 	Orange 	County 	Community 	College 	District 	(1998)
PERB Decision No. 	1268. 	In that case, 	the Board dismissed
Kiszely's 	charge 	that 	the 	North Orange 	County 	Community 	College
District 	violated 	the 	Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act
(EERA)1 by retaliating against 	her 	for her participation 	in
protected 	activities.
1EERA is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.

DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 	32410(a)2 permits any party to a decision of
the Board itself, 	"because 	of 	extraordinary circumstances," 	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.
In considering requests 	for reconsideration, 	the Board has
strictly 	applied 	the 	limited grounds 	included 	in 	PERB
Regulation 	32410 	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 Decision No. 	Ad-187a.) 	In numerous 	requests
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,
2PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
22

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.)
Kiszely 	filed 	the 	instant 	request 	for 	reconsideration of 	the
Board's 	decision 	in North Orange 	County 	Community 	College
District, 	supra, 	PERB Decision No. 	1268 on July 13, 	1998.
Kiszely's 	request 	refers 	primarily 	to matters 	previously
considered 	in the underlying decision, 	and does 	not 	demonstrate
that 	the 	Board's 	decision contains prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact.
The 	request 	presents 	no 	new evidence which 	could not 	have been
discovered with 	the 	exercise 	of 	reasonable 	diligence.
Consequently, 	Kiszely's 	request 	for 	reconsideration does 	not
describe 	extraordinary 	circumstances 	and 	fails 	to 	demonstrate
grounds 	sufficient 	to 	comply with PERB Regulation 32410.
ORDER
The 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	in North Orange 	County
Community College District 	(1998) 	PERB Decision No. 	1268 	is
hereby DENIED.
Members 	Dyer 	and Amador 	joined 	in 	the Decision.
33