Los Angeles County Office of Education (Burton) (PERB 1360EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LILLIAN H. 	BURTON,
Charging 	Party,
v.
LOS 	ANGELES 	COUNTY OFFICE 	OF
EDUCATION,
Respondent.
) 	Case No. 	LA-CE-4046
Request 	for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 	1360
PERB Decision No. 	13 60a
February 11, 	2000
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance: 	Lillian H. 	Burton, 	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 a motion 	for reconsideration
filed by Lillian H. 	Burton 	(Burton) 	of 	the Board's decision in
Lillian H. 	Burton v. 	Los Angeles 	County Office of 	Education
(1999) 	PERB Decision No. 	1360 	(LACOE 	(Burton)).1 In that
decision 	the 	Board adopted 	the 	Board agent's 	dismissal 	of
Burton's 	charge alleging 	that 	the 	Los Angeles 	County Office 	of
Education 	(LACOE) 	violated section 3543.5(a) 	of 	the Educational
Employment Relations Act 	(EERA)2 when she was ordered to leave
1The Board notes 	that 	the pleading 	filed by Burton 	is 	not
titled as a motion for reconsideration. 	However, 	in light 	of 	the
fact 	that 	the 	document was 	filed within 	the 	time period 	for
reconsideration, 	and that 	the arguments presented 	in this
document 	ask the Board to 	reevaluate 	its prior decision, 	we
address 	it 	as 	a motion for 	reconsideration.
2EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
Section 3543.5(a) 	provides:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for a public 	school
)
)

campus on September 22, 	1998, 	due to her failure to comply with
LACOE procedures 	regarding a 	return 	from medical 	leave.
After reviewing 	the 	entire 	record, 	including Burton's
request, 	the Board hereby denies 	the 	request 	for reconsideration,
DISCUSSION
In LACOE. 	the Board concluded that 	Burton's 	charge did not
state a prima 	facie 	case. 	Reconsideration requests 	are governed
by PERB Regulation 32410(a),3 which states:
(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. 	. 	. 	. 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.
On November 29, 	1999, 	Burton filed the 	instant 	request
seeking 	reconsideration of 	the 	Board's 	decision 	in LACOE
(Burton). 	The request consists of an eleven page document 	in
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 any
applicant 	for employment 	or 	reemployment.
3PERB 	regulations 	are 	codified at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section 31001 et seq. 	A revision of PERB
Regulation 32410 became effective January 3, 	2000, 	subsequent 	to
the 	filing of 	this 	request. 	The 	revision has no bearing on 	the
Board's 	consideration in this 	case.
22

which Burton 	reargues 	issues 	previously 	introduced and 	ruled upon
by the Board, 	and which also 	introduces 	new claims. 	In
attachments 	to this document, 	Burton presents 	two letters 	from
LACOE, 	two letters 	from the Los Angeles 	County Education
Association 	(Association), 	and a letter from Andrea Wakefield, 	an
Association representative, 	which Burton claims 	demonstrate 	that
the Board's 	decision in LACOE 	(Burton) 	contains prejudicial
errors of 	fact.
The 	issues 	which have been previously presented by Burton do
not 	constitute 	grounds 	for 	reconsideration pursuant 	to 	PERB
Regulation 32410. 	In reviewing requests 	for reconsideration, 	the
Board has 	strictly applied 	the 	limited grounds 	included 	in 	that
regulation, 	specifically to avoid the use 	of 	the 	reconsideration
process 	to 	reargue 	or 	relitigate 	issues 	which have 	already been
decided. 	(Redwoods 	Community College District 	(1994) 	PERB
Decision No. 	1047a; 	State of California 	(Department of
Corrections) 	(1995) 	PERB Decision No. ll00a-S; Fall River Joint
Unified School District 	(1998) 	PERB Decision No. 	1259a.) 	In
numerous 	request 	for reconsideration cases, 	the Board has
declined 	to 	reconsider matters 	previously 	offered by 	the 	parties
and rejected 	in 	the underlying decision. 	(California 	State
University 	(1995) 	PERB Decision No. 	1093a-H; 	California State
Employee
- 	- 	------------------s Association. 	Local 	1000 	(Janowicz) 	(1994) 	PERB Decision
No. 	1043a-S; 	California Faculty Association 	(Wang) 	(1988) 	PERB
Decision No. 	692a-H; 	Tustin Unified School District 	(1987) 	PERB
Decision No. 	626a; 	Riverside Unified School District 	(1987) 	PERB
33

Decision No. 	622a.)
With regard to Burton's 	claims 	of 	factual 	error 	in LACOE
(Burton). 	the information she submits evidences no prejudicial
errors 	of 	fact 	that would cause us 	to 	reconsider our decision.
The 	Board 	concludes 	that 	Burton's 	request 	fails 	to 	comply
with 	PERB Regulation 	32410.
ORDER
Lillian H. 	Burton's 	request 	for reconsideration of 	the
Board's decision in Lillian H. 	Burton v. 	Los Angeles 	County-
Office of Education 	(1999) 	PERB Decision No. 	1360 	is hereby
DENIED.
Chairman 	Caffrey and Member Amador 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
44