Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (PERB A163EA)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

11 PERC { 18113

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

California Public Employment Relations Board

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, Employer, and California School
Employees Association and its Chapter #227, Exclusive Representative, and Local
660, SEIU, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.

Docket Nos. LA-D-200, (LA-R-861C)

Order No. Ad-163a

June 23, 1987
Before Hesse, Chairperson; Porter and Craib, Members

Decertification -- Filing Of Petition -- Failure Of Service -- 32.53, 32.141,
37.13Although rival union failed to make service of its decertification petition concurrent with
filing in accordance with PERB Regulation 32140(b), petition was deemed timely where school
employer and incumbent union had actual notice of petition prior to their execution of collective
agreement. In view of absence of prejudice or evidence of willful delay in service of otherwise
timely petition, technical violation of PERB regulations was excused. Incumbent's petition for
reconsideration of decision, 11 PERC 18080 (PERB 1987), denied.

APPEARANCE:

E. Luis Saenz, Attorney for California School Employees Association and its
Chapter #227.

DECISION
CRAIB, Member:

Petitioner California School Employees Association And Its Chapter #227 (CSEA) requests
reconsideration of PERB Order No. Ad-163 issued by the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on April 15, 1987. In that decision, the Board affirmed an administrative
decision by the PERB Los Angeles Regional Director finding a decertification petition filed by
Local 660, SEIU, AFL-CIO (SEIU) to be timely despite a failure to concurrently serve the
petition upon the other parties in the case, as required by PERB Regulation 32140(b).1 Though
the proof of service filed with the decertification petition stated that the other parties were served
concurrently with the filing of the petition, in fact, they were not served until two days later, after
a new tentative agreement had been signed by CSEA and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified
School District (District).2 We emphasized the lack of prejudice to the other parties, as evidenced
by the fact that they received actual notice before signing the new agreement, and the lack of
evidence that the filing of the false proof of service was willful.

In determining whether to excuse the failure to strictly abide by the Board's Regulations, the
Board cited (in addition to cases cited by the Regional Director in the administrative decision) the
case of Lum v. Mission Inn Foundation, Inc. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 967. While none of these
cases presented circumstances identical to the instant cases, we found them sufficiently analogous
to be instructive in interpreting our Regulations.

DISCUSSION

CSEA posits as its basis for requesting reconsideration3 that the Board committed a substantial

______
error of law by excusing SEIU's failure to strictly abide by PERB Regulations. In particular,
CSEA asserts that it was improper to take guidance from the court cases cited by the Board and
by the Regional Director because those cases, unlike the instant case, did not involve the filing of
a false proof of service. CSEA also asserts that the Board's decision "does little to discourage the,
at minimum, inexcusably careless work by SEIU in this matter."
To the extent that CSEA's request contests reliance on the cases cited by the Regional Director,
this constitutes the mere reiteration of argument previously considered and rejected by the Board
in the underlying decision and is thus not a proper ground for reconsideration. Morgan Hill
Unified School District (1986) PERB Decision No.l 554a; Rio Hondo Community College
District (1983) PERB Decision No. 279a. The request is also deficient because it fails to
articulate why the cases cited by the Board or by the Regional Director are not sufficiently
analogous to be instructive nor why the Board's interpretation of its Regulations was otherwise in
error. With regard to the assertion that the Board's decision is insufficient to discourage further
failure to strictly abide by its Regulations, we simply reiterate that the record gave no indication
that SEIU's behavior was willful, nor was there any plausible motive for it being so. Therefore,
draconian measures are not warranted.
For the above reasons, we find no basis upon which to grant reconsideration.4
ORDER
The request for reconsideration of Case No. LA-D-200 (LA-R-861C) is hereby DENIED.
Chairperson Hesse and Member Porter joined in this Decision.
1 PERB Regulations are codified at California Administrative Code, title 8, part III,
section 31001 et seq.
2 In PERB Order No. Ad-163, the majority found that the petition was effectively filed
prior to the execution of the tentative agreement; thus, it was unnecessary to consider
whether the existence of the tentative agreement would have barred a decertification
petition filed thereafter. See section 3544.7(b)(1) of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (which is codified at Government Code section 3540, et seq.). In a
concurring opinion, Member Porter contended that the filing was not complete until it
was actually served on the other parties, which was after the tentative agreement was
signed but before it was adopted by the governing board of the District. He nevertheless
found the petition not barred on the ground that a tentative agreement must be adopted by
the governing board before it can be in effect and act as a bar to a decertification petition.
3 Regulation 32410(a) 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.
4 While adhering to the points raised in his concurrence in the underlying decision,
Member Porter agrees that Petitioner has failed to present sufficient grounds for
reconsideration.