Regents of the University of California (Statewide University Police Association) (PERB A129HA)

STATE
	OF
	CALIFORNIA
DECISION
	OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
REGENTS
	OF
	THE
	UNIVERSITY
OF 	CALIFORNIA,
Employer,
v.
STATEWIDE 	UNIVERSITY
POLICE 	ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)	
Case
	No.
	SF-M-677-H
Request
	for 	Reconsideration
PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-129-H
PERE
	Order
	No.
	Ad-129a-H
August
	9,
	1982
)
)
)
)
)
)
)"
_________________
)
Appearance: 	Robert
	A.
	Jones
	for
	the 	Statewide
	University
Police 	Association.
Before
	Gluck,
	Chairperson;
	Morgenstern 	and
	Jensen,
	Members.
DECISION
On
	June
	23, 	1982,
	the 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
(PERB
	or
	Board)
	issued
	its
	decision
	in
	Regents
	of
	the
University 	of 	California
	(6/23/82)
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	.1-1.u-.i..::
""- ..:'t
	.,
,..,,
-.:,-n
I"'\	
.,..,.
in
	which
	it
	held
	that
	the 	regional 	director
	had
	erroneously
concluded
	that
	the 	University 	of 	California
	(University)
	and
the
	Statewide 	University 	Police 	Association
	(SUPA)
	were
	at
impasse.
	The 	Board 	concluded
	that
	the 	regional 	director
failed 	to 	address
	allegations 	raised
	by
	the 	University 	which,
if
	uncontroverted,
	would
	preclude
	a
	finding 	that
	the
parties
	were
	at
	impasse. 	Since 	the
	Board 	found 	no
	evidence
in
	its 	files
	which 	served 	to 	refute 	or 	otherwise 	discredit
the 	University's 	assertions,
	it
	ordered 	the 	parties 	to
resume 	negotiations 	without 	further 	delay.

In
	its
	request
	for
	reconsideration,
1 SUPA 	now
	asserts
that
	the
	Board
	failed
	to
	review
	various
	documents
	which
	do
contest
	the 	University's
	accusations.
	While
	SUPA's
	response
to
	the 	University's
	appeal
	of
	the
	impasse
	declaration
	was
a
	general 	denial,
	it
	contested 	the
	fact
	that
	the
	signator
of
	the 	administrative
	appeal
	had
	direct
	knowledge
	of
allegations
	he
	made
	regarding 	the
	parties'
	negotiating
conduct.
	The
	Board
	considered
	a
	declaration
	thereafter
submitted
	by
	Thomas
	Mannix
	to
	substantiate
	the
	University's
claims
	but
	overlooked, 	through
	administrative 	oversight,
certain
	subsequent 	submissions
	that
	SUPA
	sent
	to 	the
	Board.
1 PERB
	rules 	are 	codified
	at
	California 	Administrative
Code,
	title
	8,
	section
	31000
	et
	seq. 	Section
	32410(a)
	setsforth
	the
	rule
	regarding 	requests 	for 	reconsideration.
	It
provides:
(a)
	Any
	party 	to
	a
	decision 	of 	the
Board
	itself
	may,
	be.cause
	of
extraordinary 	circumstances,
	file
	a
request 	to 	reconsider 	the 	decisionwith 	the
	Board
	itself
	within
	10
	days
following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	thedecisiono
	The
	request 	for
reconsideration 	shall
	be
	filed
	with
the 	Executive
	Assistant 	to 	the
	Board
and
	shall 	state
	with
	specificity
	the
grounds 	claimed 	and, 	where
	applicable,
shall 	specify 	the
	page
	of 	the 	record
relied
	on.
	Service
	and
	proof 	of
service 	of 	the 	request 	pursuant 	toSection
	32140
	are 	required.
2

At
	this
	juncture,
	the
	Board
	is
	confronted
	with
	documents
from
	both
	parties
	which
	are
	in
	significant 	conflict
	as
	to
the
	factual
	circumstances 	preceding
	the
	impasse
	declaration.
Because
	resolution
	of
	these 	divergent
	allegations
	raises
issues
	of 	the
	parties' 	credibility,
	we
	find
	it
	is
	most
appropriate
	to
	remand
	this
	case
	to 	the 	regional
	director
2
who
	will,
	in
	accordance
	with applicable
	Board
	precedent,
render
	a
	determination
	as
	to 	the 	existence 	of
	a
	genuine
impasse.
3 
ORDER
In
	accordance 	with 	the
	above
	decision, 	the
	Board 	remands
this
	c~se
	to 	the 	regional
	director
	and
	ORDERS
	that
	a
determination 	of
	impasse
	be
	ascertained.
J 	\
	,~-
By':
	Marty 	M~rgenstern,
	Member
ii
	J_
erson
2
see
	Mt. 	San
	Antonio
	Community
	College
	District
(12/30/81)
	PERB
	Order
	No. 	Ad-124
	and 	Marin
	Community
College
	District
	(4/21/82)
	PERE
	Order
	No.
	Ad-126.
3
rn
	light 	of 	this
	conclusion, 	the
	Board
	finds
	it
	is
unnecessary 	to 	consider 	the 	University's
	motion
	to 	permit
a
	late 	filing 	of
	its
	response 	to
	SUPA's
	request 	for
reconsideration.
3