Alum Rock Union Elementary School District (PERB A158EA)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF
	THE
PUBLIC
	EMPLOYMENT
	RELATIONS
	BOARD
ALUM
	ROCK
	UNION
	ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
	DISTRICT,
Employer,
and
TEAMSTERS
	LOCAL
	NO.
	165,
Exclusive
	Representative,
APPELLANT,
and
CALIFORNIA
	SCHOOL
	EMPLOYEES'
ASSOCIATION,
Employee
	Organization,
Petitioner.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________ )
Case
	No.
	SF-D-129
Request
	for
	Reconsideratio
PERE
	Order
	No.
	Ad-158
PERE
	Order
	No.
	Ad-158a
December
	30,
	1986
n
Appearances:	
Madalyn
	J. 	Frazzini,
	Attorney
	for 	California
	School
Employees
	Association.
Before 	Burt,
	Porter,
	and
	Craib,
	Members.
DECISION
BURT,
	Member: 	The
	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
(Board), 	having 	duly 	considered 	the 	California
	School 	Employees
Association's
	(CSEA)
	request 	for 	reconsideration,
	hereby 	denies
that
	request.
DISCUSSION
In
	Alum 	Rock 	Union 	Elementary 	School
	District
	(1986)
	PERB
Order
	No.
	Ad-158,
	the
	Board
1
determined
	that
	a
lsection 	354l(c) 	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
	Relations
Act
	(EERA)
	codified 	at
	Government 	Code
	section
	3540
	et 	seq.

decertification 	petition 	filed
	by
	CSEA
	during
	a
	one-month
extension
	of
	a
	contract
	between
	Alum
	Rock
	Union
	Elementary
School
	District
	and
	Teamsters 	Local
	No.
	165 	was
	untimely
	and
ordered
	that
	the
	petition
	be
	dismissed.
2
Pursuant 	to
	PERB
	Regulation
	32410(a)	
and
	EERA
	section
354l(c),
	CSEA
	requests 	reconsideration
	by
	the
	full
	Board
	of
PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-158,
	asserting
	that
	the 	decision
	is
	contrary
to
	the
	language
	of 	the
	EERA,
	ignores
	prior
	Board
	precedent,
rejects
	the 	federal 	rule,
	misconstrues
	public
	sector
	bargaining
states:
The
	board
	may
	delegate
	its
	powers
	to
	any
group
	of
	three
	or
	more
	board
	members.
Nothing
	shall
	preclude
	any
	board
	member
	from
participating 	in
	any
	case
	pending
	before 	theboard.
Pursuant 	to
	that 	section,
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-158
	was
	issued
by
	a
	panel 	of
	three, 	consisting
	of
	Members
	Burt,
	Porter
	and
Craib.
	Member
	Burt 	authored
	the 	majority 	decision
	which
	was
joined
	by
	Member
	Craib.
	Member
	Porter 	dissented.
2 PERB
	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	CaliforniaAdministrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	section
	31001
	et
	seq.
	PERE
Regulation
	32410(a)
	provides:
Any
	party 	to
	a
	decision
	of
	the
	Board
	itself
may,
	because 	of 	extraordinary 	circumstances,
file
	a
	request 	to 	reconsider 	the 	decision
...
	The
	grounds
	for 	requesting
reconsideration 	are 	limited 	to 	claims
	thatthe 	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.
2

and
	will
	cause
	significant
	delay
	and
	disruption
	of
	PERB
processes.
	CSEA
	does
	not 	claim
	that
	the 	Board's
	decision
contains
	prejudicial 	errors
	of
	fact,
	nor 	does
	CSEA
	assert 	that
there
	exists
	newly
	discovered
	evidence 	or
	law
	which
	was
	not
previously 	available.
CSEA's
	arguments
	are
	reassertions
	of
	arguments
	already
considered
	by
	the
	Board.
	We
	have
	previously
	held
	that
	the
	mere
reassertion
	of
	legal
	arguments
	considered
	and
	rejected
	by
	the
Board
	in
	an
	underlying
	decision
	does
	not
	constitute
"extraordinary
	circumstances"
	which
	justify
	our
	granting
	a
request 	for 	reconsideration.
3
See,
	e.g.,
	Rio
	Hondo
	Community
College
	District
	(1983)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	279a;
	Morgan
	Hill
Unified
	School
	District
	(1986)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	554a.
Furthermore,
	as
	to
	CSEA's
	request
	that
	the
	full
	Board
reconsider
	PERB
	Order
	No.
	Ad-158,
	we
	have
	previously 	held
	that,
while
	all
	members
	of 	the
	Board 	have
	the
	right
	to
	participate
	in
any
	case 	before
	it,
	a
	party
	may
	not
	require
	participation
	by
the
	full
	Board.
	Morgan
	Hill
	Unified
	School
	District,
	supra.
For
	the
	above 	reasons~
	we
	find
	no
	basis
	upon 	which
	to 	grant
reconsideration.
ORDER
The
	request 	for 	reconsideration 	in
	Case
	No.
	SF-D-129
	is
hereby
	DENIED.
Members
	Porter
	and
	Craib 	joined 	in 	this
	Decision.
3while
	still
	adhering 	to 	his 	dissent,
	Member
	Porter
nevertheless 	agrees 	that 	Petitioner 	has 	failed 	to
	show
	the
necessary 	grounds 	for 	granting 	reconsideration.
3