Oakland Unified School District (PERB A140E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
OAKLAND
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Charging
	Party,
v.
OAKLAND
	UNIFIED
	SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case
	No.
	SF-CE-469
Request
	for 	Stay
PERB
	Decision
	No.
	367
INTERIM
	ORDER
PERB
	Decision
	No. 	367a
Administrative
	Appeal
PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-140
February
	27,
	1984
___________________
)
Appearances:	
Andrew
	Thomas
	Sinclair,
	Attorney 	for
	Oakland
School
	Employees
	Association;
	Nancy
	Helen 	Lowenthal,
	Attorney
for
	Oakland
	Unified
	School
	District.
Before
	Tovar 	and
	Morgenstern,
	Members;
	and
	Hesse,
	Chairperson.
DECISION
	AND
	ORDER
MORGENSTERN,
	Member: 	The
	Oakland
	Unified
	School
	District
(District)
	has
	filed
	a
	Request
	for 	Reconsideration 	of
	PERB
Decision
	No. 	367
	pursuant 	to
	rule
	32410
1
of 	the 	Public
Employment
	Relations
	Board
	(PERB
	or 	Board).
	The
	District
	has
lPERB
	rules 	are 	codified
	at 	California 	Administrative
Code,
	title
	8,
	section
	31001
	et
	seq.
	Rule 	32410
	provides, 	in
pertinent 	part:
(a) 	Any
	party 	to
	a
	decision 	of 	the
	Board
itself
	may,
	because 	of 	extraordinarycircumstances,
	file
	a
	request 	to
reconsider 	the 	decision 	within
	20
	days
following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the
decision.
	An
	original
	and
	5
	copies 	of
the 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	shall
	be
filed 	with 	the 	Board
	itself
	in 	the
headquarters 	office
	and
	shall 	state 	with
specificity 	the 	grounds 	claimed 	and,
•

also
	requested
	a
	stay
	of
	the
	effectiveness
	of
	that 	decision.
Pursuant 	to
	a
	mutually
	agreed-upon
	extension 	of
	time
	within
which
	to
	file,
	the
	District 	filed
	its
	requests
	on
	January
	19,
1984,
	and
	the
	Oakland
	School
	Employees
	Association
(Association)
	filed
	its
	Opposition 	to 	the
	Stay
	on
	February
	6,
1984.
where
	applicable, 	shall 	specify 	the
	page
of 	the 	record
	relied
	on.
	Service
	and
proof 	of 	service 	of 	the 	request 	pursuant
to 	Section
	32140
	are 	required.
	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.
Also
	on
	February 	6,
	1984,
	the 	Association
	filed
	an
	appeal
from
	the
	administrative 	decision 	of
	PERB's
	regional
	director
denying
	the
	Association's
	request
	for
	immediate
	enforcement
	of
Decision
	No.
	367,
	notwithitanding
	~he
	pendency
	of 	the
District's
	request
	for
	reconsideration.
The
	Board
	hereby
	ORDERS
	that
	compliance 	with
	Decision
No.
	367
	be
	STAYED
	pending 	our
	determination
	whether
	to
	grant
reconsideration,
	and
	further
	ORDERS
	that
	the
	Association's
administrative
	appeal
	be
	DENIED.
Member
	Tovar 	and
	Chairperson
	Hesse
	joined 	in
	this
	Decision.
'
2