Glendora Unified School District (PERB 0876EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
GLENDORA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-3052
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB 	Decision No. 	876
PERB Decision No. 	876a
July 	1, 	1991
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	California Teachers Association by Charles 	R.
Gustafson, 	Attorney, 	for Glendora Teachers Association; 	Parker,
Covert & Chidester by Michael L. 	Owens, 	Attorney, 	for Glendora
Unified 	School 	District.
Before Hesse, Chairperson; 	Shank and Camilli, 	Members.
DECISION
CAMILLI, 	Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on a 	request 	for reconsideration
filed by the Glendora Teachers Association 	(GTA) 	of 	the 	Board's
decision in Glendora Unified School 	District 	(1991) 	PERB Decision
No. 	876. 	In that decision, 	the Board denied GTA's appeal of a
Board agent's 	dismissal 	of 	its 	unfair practice 	charge 	on the
grounds 	that 	the GTA 	failed to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of 	a
unilateral 	change. 	The 	Board also held that the 	Board agent did
not 	exceed his 	authority by 	examining the plain 	and 	unambiguous
language of 	the contract provisions 	in question to determine 	if 	a
prima 	facie 	case was 	stated.
For the 	reasons 	expressed below, 	we deny the 	request 	to
reconsider that 	decision.
~
~
(

DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 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.
GTA contends, 	as 	it did in its 	appeal of the Board agent's
dismissal, 	that the Glendora 	Unified School 	District's 	(District)
action 	in granting 	a 	counselor release 	time 	to make 	four 	separate
presentations 	at 	seminars 	sponsored by the 	local 	county office 	of
education 	constituted 	a 	unilateral 	change 	in policy 	as
established 	by Articles 	4.2 	and 	4.3 	of 	the 	collective 	bargaining
agreement. 	Specifically, 	GTA asserts 	that the District's 	action:
(1) 	was 	not within the meaning of 	"temporary exception" 	as 	that
term is 	used in Article 4.3; 	(2) 	was not 	in accordance with the
criteria 	for a District decision as 	set 	forth 	in Article 	4.5; 	and
(3) 	constituted a 	change 	in the practice of 	not granting 	such
leaves. 	In support of these arguments, 	GTA argues 	that the 	"true
meaning" 	of 	the 	contract provisions 	in question is 	that release
time will 	be 	granted only on the basis 	of 	the 	criteria
established 	in Article 	4.5 	(e.g., 	" . . . 	based 	on the
educational 	needs 	of 	the 	school 	and the professional 	need 	for
teachers to be available to students, 	parents, 	and
administrators.").
PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified at 	California Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 	et seq.
22

These arguments, 	however, 	merely restate the arguments made
by GTA in its previous 	appeal. 	Moreover, 	GTA fails 	to 	identify
any prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact 	contained 	in the 	Board's 	decision,
nor 	is 	its 	request based on newly discovered evidence 	or 	law
which was 	not previously 	available 	and 	could not 	have been
discovered with 	the 	exercise 	of 	reasonable 	diligence.
Accordingly, 	GTA's 	request 	for reconsideration of 	PERB Decision
No. 	876 is denied.
ORDER
In accordance with PERB Regulation 	32410, 	the request 	for
reconsideration of PERB Decision No. 	876 	is hereby DENIED.
Chairperson 	Hesse 	and Member 	Shank 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
w
	3