Los Angeles Unified School District (Siamis) (PERB 0311EA)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
GUST SIAMIS
Charging Party-Petitioner,
V •
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________)
Case Nos. LA-CE-1163
LA-CE-1234
Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 311
PERB Decision No. 311a
February 23, 1984
GUST SIAMIS
Charging Party-Petitioner,
v.
UNITED TEACHERS OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
Case Nos. LA-C0-134
LA-C0-143
Appearances: Gust Siamis in his own behalf; Joel M. Grossman,
Attorney (O'Melveny & Meyers) for Los Angeles Unified School
District; and Richard J. Schwab, Attorney, (Law Offices of
Lawrence B. Trygstad) for United Teachers of Los Angeles.
Before Tovar, Jaeger and Morgenstern, Members.
DECISION
JAEGER, Member: Petitioner requests reconsideration of
PERB Decision No. 311 issued May 20, 1983, which disposed of
four unfair practice charges filed by him. Two charges were
against the Los Angeles Unified School District and two were
against United Teachers of Los Angeles. The Board dismissed

three 	of 	the 	charges 	but 	remanded 	Case 	No. 	LA-CE-1163 	for
further 	proceedings.
DISCUSSION
PERB 	regulation 	32410 provides 	in 	part:
(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 •••. 	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. 	(Emphasis 	added.)
Petitioner 	raises 	no 	issues 	concerning 	the 	decision 	of 	the
Board 	itself, 	claiming 	neither 	prejudicial 	error 	on 	its 	part
nor 	the 	existence 	of 	new 	evidence 	not 	previously 	available 	to
him. 	The 	basis 	for 	his 	request 	consists 	of 	a 	considerable
volume 	of 	criticism, 	much 	of 	it 	diatribe, 	of 	the 	conduct 	and
rulings 	of 	the 	administrative 	law 	judge 	(ALJ) 	who presided 	over
the 	unfair 	practice 	cases. 	To 	a 	great 	extent, 	petitioner's
allegations 	were 	presented 	to 	the 	Board 	itself 	in his
exceptions 	to 	the 	ALJ's 	proposed 	decision. 	They 	were
considered 	by 	the 	Board 	and 	rejected. 	To 	the 	extent 	petitioner
seeks 	to 	introduce 	new 	allegations 	concerning 	the 	ALJ's 	conduct
and 	rulings, 	he 	is 	too 	late. 	All 	of 	these 	purported 	incidents
occurred, 	if 	at 	all, 	during 	the 	unfair 	practice hearing, 	were
known 	to 	petitioner 	then 	and 	could have 	been 	raised 	in his
appeal 	from 	the 	proposed 	order.
2

ORDER
The Board, finding in petitioner's request for
reconsideration no viable claim of prejudicial error of fact
contained in its Decision No. 311, and no claim of newly
discovered evidence or law which was not previously available
to petitioner, ORDERS that the request for reconsideration i s
DENIED.
M embers Tovar and Morgenstern joined in this Decision.
3