Sonoma County Ofdice of Education (PERB A230EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
ASSOCIATION 	OF 	SONOMA COUNTY
OFFICE 	OF 	EDUCATION, 	CTA/NEA,
Charging 	Party,
V.
SONOMA 	COUNTY 	OFFICE 	OF 	EDUCATION,
Respondent.
Case 	No. 	SF-CE-1449
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-230
PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-230a
May 	22, 	1992
Anpearances: 	California 	Teachers 	Association 	by 	Ramon 	E. 	Romero,
Attorney, 	for 	Association 	of 	Sonoma 	County 	Office 	of 	Education,
CTA/NEAi 	School 	and 	College 	Legal 	Services 	by 	Margaret 	M.
Merchat, 	Attorney, 	for 	Sonoma 	County 	Office 	of 	Education.
Before 	Hesse, 	Chairpersoni 	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 	the 	Sonoma 	County 	Office 	of 	Education 	(SCOE) 	of 	the
Board's 	decision 	in 	Sonoma 	County 	Office 	of 	Education 	(1992) 	PERB
Order 	No. 	Ad-230. 	In 	that 	decision, 	the 	Board 	denied 	SCOE's
appeal 	of 	the 	PERB 	appeals 	assistant's 	rejection 	of 	SCOE's
exceptions 	in 	Case 	No. 	SF-CE-1449 	as 	untimely 	filed.
DISCUSSION
SCOE's 	exceptions 	in 	Case 	No. 	SF-CE-1449 	were 	filed 	in 	the
wrong 	PERB 	office 	and 	received 	after 	the 	filing 	deadline. 	In 	its
appeal 	of 	the 	PERB 	appeals 	assistant's 	rejection 	of 	its
exceptions 	as 	untimely, 	SCOE 	addressed 	the 	issue 	of 	filing 	with
the 	wrong 	PERB 	office, 	but 	failed 	to 	provide 	good 	cause 	as 	to 	why

its
	exceptions
	were
	filed
	after
	the
	filing
	deadline.
	As 	a
result,
	the
	Board
	denied
	SCOE's
	appeal
	in
	PERB
	Order
No.
	Ad-230.
PERB
	Regulation
	32410(a)
1
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 	descision.
	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.
SCOE
	bases
	its
	request 	for 	reconsideration
	on
	the
	grounds
that
	the
	January
	22,
	1992
	letter
	in
	which
	the
	PERB
	appeals
assistant
	rejected
	SCOE's
	exceptions
	as
	untimely
	filed,
emphasized
	the
	failure
	to
	file
	in 	the 	proper
	PERB
	office,
	and
	not
the
	fact 	that
	the 	exceptions
	were
	filed 	after
	the
	filing
deadline.
	SCOE
	asserts 	that 	"this 	constitutes 	extraordinary
circumstances 	under
	which
	our
	request 	for 	reconsideration
	by
	the
Board
	may
	be
	granted."
	SCOE
	then 	explains
	that
	an
	oversight
	by
an
	inexperienced
	secretary
	and
	a
	''very
	hectic
	schedule"
	combined
to 	result
	in 	the
	late 	filing.
The
	January
	22,
	1992
	letter
	from
	the
	PERB
	appeals
	assistant
clearly 	describes 	the 	deficiencies
	with
	SCOE's
	filing:
Exceptions
	in
	Case
	No.
	SF-CE-1449 	were 	due
	to
be
	filed 	in 	the
	Sacramento 	Headquarters
office 	of
	PERB	
by 	Thursday, 	January 	16, 	1992
1PERB
	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California
	Code
	of
Regulations,
	title
	8, 	section
	31001
	et 	seq.
2

after
	a
	one-day
	extension
	of
	time
	had
	been
granted.
	Respondent's
	exceptions
	and
	brief
were
	addressed
	and
	filed
	with
	the
	PERB
	San
Francisco
	office
	on
	January
	17,
	1992.
Accordingly,
	SCOE's
	assertion 	that
	the
	appeals
	assistant's
letter
	was
	unclear,
	constituting
	extraordinary
	circumstances
resulting
	in
	SCOE's
	failure
	to
	address
	the 	issue
	of
	the
	date
	its
exceptions
	were
	filed, 	is
	without
	merit.
Furthermore,
	SCOE
	alleges
	no
	prejudicial 	error
	of
	fact 	in
the
	Board
	decision,
	nor
	does
	it
	assert 	that
	there
	is
	new
	evidence
or
	law which
	"could 	not
	have 	been
	discovered 	with
	the
	exercise
	of
reasonable
	diligence."
	Accordingly,
	SCOE
	has
	failed
	to
demonstrate
	appropriate
	grounds 	under
	which
	the
	Board
	may
consider
	its
	request 	for 	reconsideration.
ORDER
The
	request 	for 	reconsideration
	of
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-230
	is
hereby
	DENIED.
Chairperson
	Hesse 	and
	Member
	Camilli 	joined
	in 	this
	Decision.
3