Monterey County Office of Education (PERB 0913EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
JEANETTE G. 	GILLIGAN,
Charging 	Party,
v.
MONTEREY COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
)
) 	Case No. 	SF-CE-1415
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB 	Decision No. 	913
PERB Decision No. 	913a
February 	27, 	1992
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Jeanette G. 	Gilligan, 	on her own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Shank and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on a request for reconsideration
filed by Jeanette G. 	Gilligan 	(Gilligan) 	of 	the Board's 	decision in
Monterey County Office of Education 	(1991) 	PERB Decision No. 	913.
In that decision, 	the Board affirmed the 	administrative 	law 	judge's
(ALJ) 	dismissal 	of her unfair practice 	charge on the grounds 	that
Gilligan 	failed to 	state a prima 	facie 	case 	of 	discrimination or
reprisal 	for her protected 	activities. 	For the 	reasons 	expressed
below, 	the Board denies 	Gilligan's 	request 	for reconsideration.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32410(a)1 states, 	in pertinent part:
Any party to a decision of 	the 	Board 	itself
may, 	because of 	extraordinary circumstances,
file 	a 	request to 	reconsider the decision
within 20 days 	following the date of 	service
________________ )
1PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 310001 et seq.

of the decision. 	. 	. 	. 	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.
In her request for reconsideration, 	Gilligan contends, 	as 	she
did on her appeal 	of the ALJ's dismissal, 	that the Monterey County
Office of Education's 	(MCOE) 	action in dismissing her was 	motivated
by her performance of protected activities. 	Reconsideration 	is 	not
appropriate when a party 	restates 	an argument which was 	considered
and rejected by the 	Board 	in 	its 	underlying decision. 	(Los 	Angeles
Community College District 	(1992) 	PERB Decision No. 	908a; 	Tustin
Unified School District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	626a.) 	Here,
Gilligan's 	arguments 	merely 	restate 	arguments 	made 	in her previous
appeal. 	These 	arguments were properly rejected by the 	Board 	in 	its
underlying 	decision.
Additionally, 	Gilligan's 	submission of 	a 	letter from a
California 	School 	Employees 	Association representative 	to 	MCOE's
attorneys 	concerning 	a request 	to 	remove 	all 	derogatory 	remarks
from Gilligan's 	personnel 	records 	fails 	to demonstrate 	that 	the
Board's 	decision contained prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact. 	Finally,
Gilligan has 	failed to 	show that her 	request 	for reconsideration2
is 	based 	on newly discovered 	evidence 	or 	law which was 	not
2Gilligan 	submitted 	an addendum 	to her request 	for
reconsideration. 	This 	addendum was 	filed outside 	the 	statutory
time period. 	Nevertheless, 	the materials 	submitted would not
change the Board's 	initial determination as 	it 	fails 	to meet
the requirements of PERB Regulation 32410(a).
N	2

previously 	available 	and 	could 	not 	have 	been discovered with 	the
exercise of reasonable diligence. 	Accordingly, 	Gilligan has 	failed
to 	demonstrate 	extraordinary 	circumstances 	warranting
reconsideration.
ORDER
There being no proper grounds 	for reconsideration 	stated, 	the
request 	for reconsideration of 	PERB 	Decision No. 	913 	is 	hereby
DENIED.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member 	Shank 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
w	3