Lindsay Unified School District (PERB 0936EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LETICIA 	GONZALEZ,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LINDSAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	S-CE-1447
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	936
PERB Decision No. 	936a
July 16, 	1992
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Bourdette 	and Partners 	by Allen Broslovsky,
Attorney, 	for Leticia Gonzalez; 	Lozano, 	Smith, 	Smith, 	Woliver &
Behrens by Ellen M. 	Jahn, 	Attorney, 	for Lindsay Unified School
District.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Camilli and Caffrey, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on a request 	for reconsideration
filed by Leticia Gonzalez 	(Gonzalez) 	of 	the Board's decision 	in
Lindsay 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1992) 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	936. 	In that decision the Board denied Gonzalez's 	appeal 	of
a 	Board 	agent's 	dismissal 	of 	her unfair practice 	charge 	on the
grounds 	that 	she had 	failed to 	state 	a prima 	facie 	case 	of her
charge 	that 	the 	Lindsay 	Unified 	School 	District 	retaliated
against 	her by refusing 	to 	rehire 	her 	after 	she 	advocated 	for
bilingual 	education 	issues.
DISCUSSION
In her request for reconsideration, 	Gonzalez, 	who was 	in pro
per in her appeal, 	contends that the 	fact that 	she 	is now
represented by 	counsel will 	allow her 	to 	"present her 	charges 	in

a 	more 	focused manner" 	and provide 	the 	Board with 	new evidence.
Gonzalez 	argues 	that her 	"charges were 	not 	fully and 	fairly-
decided on its 	(sic) 	merits" 	by the Board agent because the
numerous 	notes 	and 	exhibits 	she 	submitted were 	unorganized 	and
difficult to review. 	Gonzalez 	further contends 	that the Board,
in denying her appeal, 	conducted only 	"a cursory review" 	of 	the
Board 	agent's 	warning and dismissal 	letters 	and reviewed 	no 	other
material 	she 	had 	submitted which 	"violated her due 	process 	rights
and 	constitutes 	an abuse 	of discretion."
PERB Regulation section 32410(a)1 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.
Failure by a party to present a well 	organized 	case 	to 	a 	Board
agent, 	or on appeal to the Board, 	does 	not constitute appropriate
grounds 	under which 	that party may 	request 	reconsideration 	from
the Board. 	Furthermore, 	while Gonzalez 	contends 	that her
counsel will provide the Board with new evidence 	if
reconsideration is 	granted, 	no 	such evidence is 	cited 	in 	support
of the request 	for reconsideration. 	Therefore, 	Gonzalez's
request 	that 	the 	Board grant 	reconsideration now that 	she 	has
retained 	counsel 	to help present her case 	is 	rejected.
IPERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified at California Code of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 	et seq.
22

In his 	dismissal 	letter, 	the Board agent 	indicates 	that he
considered 	the 	numerous 	notes 	and 	exhibits 	Gonzalez 	submitted
with her amended charge. 	Because of 	the disorganization of 	the
material 	and 	the 	difficulty 	in determining 	its 	relevance 	to
Gonzalez's 	charges, 	the Board agent concluded that Gonzalez 	had
failed to meet the requirements 	of 	PERB 	Regulation 	326152
and dismissed the allegations, 	if 	any, 	contained in the material.
The 	failure 	of 	a 	charging party 	to 	comply with 	Board 	regulations
governing unfair practice proceedings 	does 	not provide 	support
for 	the 	contention that 	the 	unfair practice 	charge 	allegations
were 	not 	fully considered by a Board agent. 	Therefore,
Gonzalez's 	argument to this 	effect 	is 	rejected.
Finally, 	Gonzalez 	is 	incorrect 	in asserting that the Board
reviewed 	only 	the 	Board 	agent's 	warning 	and dismissal 	letters 	and
no 	other documents 	in considering her appeal. 	In Santa Clara
Unified School District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	104, 	the Board
discussed 	its 	authority 	and 	responsibility 	in 	considering
2PERB Regulation section
part: (5) states, in pertinent
(a) 	A charge may be 	filed alleging that 	an
unfair practice 	or practices 	have been
committed. 	The charge 	shall be in writing,
signed under penalty 	of 	perjury by the party
or 	its 	agent with the declaration that the
charge is 	true, 	and complete to the best of
the 	charging party's 	knowledge 	and belief,
and 	contain the 	following 	information:
(5) 	A clear and concise 	statement of the
facts 	and 	conduct 	alleged 	to 	constitute 	an
unfair practice;
33

appeals, 	indicating that 	"the 	Board 	is 	required to consider the
entire 	record 	including 	the 	totality of 	testimony offered, 	and 	is
free 	to 	draw its 	own and perhaps 	contrary 	inferences 	from the
evidence 	presented." 	The 	Board 	considered 	the 	entire 	record 	in
this 	case. 	Therefore, 	Gonzalez's 	contention that the Board
abused 	its 	discretion by 	failing 	to 	consider material 	submitted
by Gonzalez 	is without merit and 	is 	rejected.
ORDER
The 	request 	for reconsideration in PERB Decision No. 	936 	is
hereby 	DENIED.
Chairperson Hesse 	and Member Camilli 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
4