Los Angeles Unified School District (Seliga) (PERB 1300EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
PAULA J. 	SELIGA,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-3946
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	1300
PERB Decision No. 	13 00a
February 1, 	1999
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Paula J. 	Seliga, 	on her own behalf.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Dyer and Amador, 	Members.
DECISION
DYER, 	Member: 	This 	case 	comes before the Public Employment
Relations Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on Paula J. 	Seliga's 	(Seliga)
request 	that 	the 	Board reconsider 	its 	decision 	in Los Angeles
Unified School District 	(1998) 	PERB Decision No. 	1300 	(LAUSD).
In LAUSD. 	Seliga alleged that 	the 	Los Angeles Unified School
District 	(District) 	violated section 3543.5(a) 	of 	the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA)1 when it 	transferred her from
1EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references 	herein are
to the Government Code. 	Section 3543.5 provides, 	in relevant
part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for a public 	school
employer to do any of 	the 	following:
(a) 	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. 	For purposes 	of
this subdivision, 	"employee" 	includes an

Bertrand School 	to Hazeltine 	School 	in retaliation 	for her
protected activities. 	After investigation, 	the Board's Office of
General 	Counsel 	dismissed 	the 	charge 	and 	refused 	to 	issue 	a
complaint. 	The Board adopted that 	dismissal 	in LAUSD.
BACKGROUND
Seliga's 	charge alleged that, 	during the 	1997-98 	school
year, 	she 	filed a number of 	grievances and 	served on United
Teachers 	of Los Angeles' 	House of Representatives. 	In January of
1998, 	Seliga reported the District's alleged misuse of 	funds 	to
the California Department 	of Education. 	In June of 	1998, 	the
District 	involuntarily 	transferred 	Seliga 	from Bertrand 	School 	to
Hazeltine 	School. 	Seliga alleged 	that 	the District 	initiated
this 	transfer 	in 	retaliation 	for her protected activities.
In order to state a prima 	facie 	cause 	of 	action 	for a
violation of 	EERA section 3543.5(a), 	a charging party must 	show
that: 	(1) 	the employee exercised rights protected by the EERA;
(2) 	the employer had knowledge of 	the 	exercise of 	those rights;
(3) 	the employer imposed or threatened to 	impose 	reprisals,
discriminated or 	threatened to discriminate, 	or otherwise
interfered with, 	restrained or coerced the 	employee because 	of
the 	exercise 	of 	those 	rights. 	(Novato Unified School 	District
(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	210 at pp. 	5-6; 	Carlsbad Unified School
District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	89 at p. 	11.) 	In adopting the
Board agent's 	dismissal, 	the Board 	concluded that 	Seliga had
applicant 	for 	employment 	or 	reemployment.
2

failed 	to 	demonstrate 	the 	requisite 	connection between her
protected activities 	and 	the District's 	decision 	to 	transfer her.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation section 324102 provides 	that 	a party to a
Board 	decision may 	request 	reconsideration 	on 	the 	grounds 	that
the decision contains prejudicial 	errors 	of 	fact, 	or newly
discovered evidence 	or law. 	The Board will 	not 	grant 	a 	request
for 	reconsideration where 	the party making 	the 	request 	has 	failed
to 	establish any ground set 	forth 	in PERB Regulation 32410. 	(See,
e.g., 	California State Employees Association, 	Local 	1000
(Janowicz) 	(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1043a-S at pp. 	2-3.)
Likewise, 	reconsideration 	is 	not 	appropriate where a party merely
restates 	arguments 	considered and 	rejected by 	the 	Board 	in 	its
2PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq. 	PERB Regulation
section 32410 provides, 	in relevant part:
(a) 	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 of 	the decision. 	An original
and five 	copies 	of 	the 	request 	for
reconsideration 	shall 	be 	filed with 	the 	Board
itself 	in 	the 	headquarters 	office 	and 	shall
state with 	specificity 	the 	grounds 	claimed
and, 	where applicable, 	shall 	specify the page
of 	the 	record relied on. 	Service and proof
of 	service of 	the 	request pursuant 	to Section
32140 	are 	required. 	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.
33

underlying decision. 	(Id.; 	Regents 	of 	the University of
California 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	829a-H at pp. 	2-3.)
In her request 	for reconsideration, 	Seliga 	reiterates her
contention 	that 	the District 	retaliated against 	her because 	of
her protected activities. 	Seliga's 	request does not, 	however,
point 	to any prejudicial 	error of 	fact, 	or newly discovered
evidence 	or law. 	Accordingly, 	Seliga's 	request 	for
reconsideration 	fails 	to meet 	the 	standard 	set 	forth 	in 	PERB
Regulation section 	32410.
ORDER
The 	request 	for reconsideration 	in Los 	Angeles 	Unified
School District 	(1998) 	PERB Decision No. 	1300 	is hereby DENIED.
Chairman 	Caffrey and Member Amador 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
44