California State Employees Association (Mitchell) (PERB 0969SA)

STATE 	OP 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
MARILYN MITCHELL,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
) 	Case No. 	S-CO-140-S
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	969-S
PERB Decision No. 	969a-S
April 27, 	1993
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Marilyn Mitchell, 	on her own behalf.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Caffrey and Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or Board) 	on a 	request 	for reconsideration
filed by Marilyn Mitchell 	(Mitchell) 	of 	the Board's 	decision 	in
California State Employees Association 	(Mitchell) 	(1993) 	PERB
Decision No. 	969-S. 	In that decision the Board denied Mitchell'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
a violation of 	section 3519.5(b) 	of 	the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills
Act)1 by the California State Employees Association 	(CSEA).
1The Dills Act 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3512
et seq. 	Section 3519.5 	states, 	in pertinent part:
(b) 	Impose 	or threaten to 	impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees because 	of 	their exercise of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter.
)
)

In her request 	for reconsideration, 	Mitchell 	asserts 	that
the 	Board 	did 	not 	comprehensively 	or 	conscientiously deal 	with
her appeal 	of 	the dismissal 	of 	her unfair practice 	charge.
Mitchell 	further 	suggests 	that 	PERB 	improperly assisted 	CSEA by
providing 	it 	with documents 	which were 	attached 	to 	the 	charge 	she
filed with PERB, 	and that 	CSEA relied on this 	information 	in
taking 	independent 	legal 	action against 	her.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation section 32410 (a)2 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.
Mitchell's 	assertions 	that 	the 	Board 	failed 	to 	carefully
consider her appeal 	are without merit. 	The Board thoroughly
considered 	the 	allegations 	in her 	charge 	and 	the 	appeal 	of 	its
dismissal. 	Despite Mitchell's voluminous 	filings 	(over 600
pages), 	her original and amended charges, 	and her appeal of 	the
dismissal 	of 	those 	charges, 	simply fail 	to state a prima 	facie
case of a Dills Act violation. 	In Mitchell's 	current 	request,
she 	has 	failed 	to 	cite any newly discovered 	evidence 	or 	law which
would 	justify 	reconsideration by 	the 	Board.
Mitchell 	also 	suggests 	that 	PERB 	improperly provided 	CSEA
with documents 	which were 	attached 	to 	the 	charge 	she 	filed with
2PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
22

PERB. 	However, 	PERB Regulation 32615 	requires a 	charging party
to 	serve 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	charge 	and 	supporting 	documents 	on 	the
respondent. 	As Mitchell 	herself was 	required to provide 	CSEA
with the 	documents 	related to her charge, 	her contention that
PERB 	improperly released 	information 	is 	without merit.
ORDER
The 	request 	for reconsideration 	in PERB Decision No. 	969-S
is hereby DENIED.
Chair Blair and Member Carlyle 	joined 	in 	this Decision.
3