California State Employees Association (Janowicz) (PERB 1043SA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
FRANK D. 	JANOWICZ,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, 	LOCAL 1000,
Respondent.
Case No. 	LA-CO-52-S
Request 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	1043-S
PERB Decision No. 	1043a-S
May 12, 	1994
Appearances: 	Frank D. 	Janowicz, 	on his own behalf; 	Michael D.
Hersh, 	Attorney, 	for California State Employees Association,
Local 1000.
Before Blair, 	Chair; 	Caffrey and Garcia, 	Members.
DECISION
GARCIA, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on a 	request 	for reconsideration
filed by Frank D. 	Janowicz 	(Janowicz) 	of 	the Board's 	decision in
California State Employees Association. 	Local 	1000 	(Janowicz)
(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1043-S. 	In that decision, 	the Board
upheld the administrative 	law judge's 	(ALJ) 	dismissal 	for 	failure
to 	state a prima facie violation of 	section 3915.5(b) 	of 	the
Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act).1
1The Dills 	Act 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3512
et seq. 	Section 3519.5 provides, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(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

In his 	request 	for reconsideration, 	which is 	opposed by-
California State Employees Association, 	Local 	1000, 	Janowicz
alleges 	among 	other 	things 	that 	the 	Board 	"did not 	review 	the
entire 	record 	in a professional 	and non-biased manner." 	He
criticizes 	the 	handling 	of 	the 	case by a Board agent 	and attempts
to 	revisit 	the 	issues 	of 	fact 	and law raised in his 	exceptions 	to
the underlying decision.
DISCUSSION
PERB 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.
Since 	Janowicz 	cites 	no newly discovered 	evidence 	or 	law,
the main 	issue 	is whether he has provided support 	for his 	claims
that 	the 	Board's 	decision contains 	prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact.
He has not done 	so; 	in effect 	he 	is 	simply challenging the
conclusions 	the 	Board drew 	from the 	facts 	presented 	in 	the
record.
In prior cases, 	the Board has 	determined that
reconsideration 	is 	not 	appropriate 	when a party merely 	restates
arguments 	previously 	considered and 	rejected by 	the 	Board 	in 	its
underlying decision. 	(California 	Faculty Association 	(Wang)
(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	692a-H, 	p. 	4; 	Tustin Unified School
employees because 	of 	their exercise of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter.
22

District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	626a, 	p. 	3; 	Riverside Unified
School District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	622a, 	p. 	2.) 	Here,
Janowicz 	has 	presented no 	evidence 	that 	the 	Board made
prejudicial 	errors 	of fact; 	furthermore, 	the Board has already
ruled 	on 	the 	issues 	raised by Janowicz 	in his 	request 	for
reconsideration. 	Under the 	cases 	cited above, 	the Board finds
that 	Janowicz's 	request 	does 	not meet 	the 	criteria 	in PERB
Regulation 32410(a).
ORDER
The 	request 	for reconsideration 	of 	California 	State
Employees Association. 	Local 	1000 	(Janowicz) 	(1994) 	PERB Decision
No. 	1043-S 	is hereby DENIED.
Chair Blair and Member Caffrey 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
33