Madera County Office of Education (PERB 1334EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
TIMOTHY G. 	SIMERAL,
Charging 	Party,
v.
MADERA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SA-CE-1858
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	1334
PERB Decision No. 	1334a
September 	2, 	1999
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Timothy G. 	Simeral, 	on his own behalf; 	Stroup &
de Goede by Raymond W. 	Dunne, 	Attorney, 	for Madera County Office
of Education.
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
Timothy G. 	Simeral 	(Simeral) 	that 	the Board reconsider its
decision 	in Madera County Office of 	Education 	(1999) 	PERB
Decision No. 	1334. 	In that 	case, 	the Board dismissed Simeral's
charge 	that 	the Madera County Office 	of 	Education violated
section 3543.5(a) 	of 	the Educational 	Employment 	Relations Act
(EERA)1 by retaliating against 	him for his participation in
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3543.5 	states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer 	to do any of 	the 	following:
(a) 	Impose or threaten to impose reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by this 	chapter. 	For purposes 	of

protected 	activities.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32410(a)2 permits any party to a decision of
the Board itself, 	"because of 	extraordinary circumstances," 	to
request 	that 	the Board reconsider 	its 	decision. 	Regulation
32410(a) 	states, 	in pertinent part:
The 	grounds 	for 	requesting 	reconsideration
are limited to claims 	that: 	(1) 	the decision
of 	the Board itself 	contains 	prejudicial
errors of 	fact, 	or 	(2) 	the party has newly
discovered 	evidence 	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 	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.) 	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.
Local 1000 	(Janowicz) 	(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1043a-S;
California Faculty Association 	(Wang) 	(1988) 	PERB Decision
this subdivision, 	"employee" 	includes an
applicant 	for 	employment 	or 	reemployment.
2PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
22

No. 	692a-H; 	Tustin Unified School District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision
No. 	626a-H; 	Riverside Unified School District 	(1987) 	PERB
Decision No. 	622a.)
Simeral's 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	refers 	to matters
previously considered 	in the underlying decision, 	and does 	not
demonstrate 	that 	the 	Board's 	decision 	contains 	prejudicial 	errors
of 	fact. 	Additionally, 	the request presents no new evidence
which 	could not 	have been discovered with 	the 	exercise 	of
reasonable diligence. 	Consequently, 	Simeral'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 Madera 	County Office 	of
Education 	(1999) 	PERB Decision No. 	1334 	is hereby DENIED.
Members 	Dyer and Amador 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
W
	3