California State Employees Association (Hutchinson) (PERB 1355SA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CESSALY D. 	HUTCHINSON,
Charging 	Party,
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
) 	Case No. 	SF-CO-39-S
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	1355-S
PERB Decision No. 	1355a-S
December 21, 	1999
)
)
Appearance; 	Cessaly D. 	Hutchinson, 	on her own behalf.
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Dyer and Amador, 	Members.
DECISION
CAFFREY, 	Chairman: 	This case is before the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on a 	request by
Cessaly D. 	Hutchinson 	(Hutchinson) 	that 	the Board reconsider 	its
decision 	in 	California State 	Employees Association 	(Hutchinson)
(1999) 	PERB Decision No. 	1355-S 	(CSEA 	(Hutchinson)). 	In CSEA
(Hutchinson). 	the Board dismissed Hutchinson's unfair practice
charge which alleged 	that 	the 	California 	State 	Employees
Association violated section 3519.5(a) 	and 	(b) 	of 	the Ralph C.
Dills Act 	(Dills Act)1 by breaching 	its duty of 	fair
1The Dills Act 	is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 	3512
et seq. 	Section 3519.5 	states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for an employee
organization to:
(a) 	Cause or attempt 	to 	cause 	the state 	to
violate 	Section 3519.
(b) 	Impose or threaten to 	impose reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to
)
)

representation 	to her and by 	causing 	the 	State 	of 	California
(Department 	of Transportation) 	to terminate her employment.
discriminate against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees because 	of 	their exercise of 	rights
guaranteed by 	this 	chapter.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32410(a)2 permits any party to a decision of
the Board itself, 	"because of 	extraordinary circumstances," 	to
request 	that 	the Board reconsider its 	decision. 	Regulation
32410(a) 	states, 	in pertinent part:
The 	grounds 	for 	requesting 	reconsideration
are limited to claims 	that: 	(1) 	the decision
of 	the 	Board itself 	contains 	prejudicial
errors of 	fact, 	or 	(2) 	the party has newly
discovered 	evidence 	which was 	not 	previously
available 	and 	could not 	have 	been discovered
with the 	exercise 	of 	reasonable diligence.
In considering 	requests 	for reconsideration, 	the Board has
strictly applied 	the 	limited grounds 	described 	in 	PERB 	Regulation
32410 	to avoid the use of 	the 	reconsideration process 	to
relitigate 	issues 	which have already been decided. 	(Redwoods
Community College District 	(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1047a; 	Madera
County Office of Education 	(1999) 	PERB Decision No. 	1334a.)
In her request 	for reconsideration, 	Hutchinson does not
claim that 	the 	Board's 	decision 	contains prejudicial 	error of
fact, 	or that 	she has discovered new evidence. 	Consequently,
Hutchinson's 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	fails 	to demonstrate
grounds 	sufficient 	to 	comply with 	PERB Regulation 	32410.
2PERB 	regulations are 	codified at 	California Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 8, 	section 31001 et seq.
22

ORDER
The 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	in 	California 	State
Employees Association 	(Hutchinson) 	(1999) 	PERB Decision
No. 	1355-S is hereby DENIED.
Members 	Dyer and Amador 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
33