Riverside Unified School District (Petrich) (PERB I051E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
TONY PETRICH,
Charging 	Party,
v.
RIVERSIDE UNIFIED 	SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case 	No. 	LA-CE-2359
Requests 	for 	Reconsideration
PERB 	Order 	No. 	IR-51
September 	23, 	1987
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearance; 	Tony Petrich, 	on his own behalf.
Before Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Porter and Craib, 	Members.
DECISION
HESSE, 	Chairperson: 	The 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
(PERB or Board) 	has 	received 	two 	requests 	from 	charging party
that 	the 	Board 	reconsider 	its decision of June 	20, 	1986,
concerning 	Injunctive 	Relief 	Request 	No. 	239, 	and 	its 	decision
of January 30, 	1987, 	concerning 	Injunctive 	Relief 	Request No.
250, 	both of which 	denied charging party's 	requests 	for
injunctive 	relief.
The 	requests 	for 	reconsideration 	were 	received 	by 	the 	Board
on May 21, 	1987 and August 5, 	1987. 	PERB Regulation 32410(a)1
clearly 	sets 	forth 	that 	a 	Request 	for 	Reconsideration 	must 	be
filed 	"within 	20 days 	following 	the 	date 	of 	the 	service 	of 	the
decision." 	Charging party's 	requests 	are, 	therefore, 	untimely.
1
PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified at California
Administrative Code, 	title 8, part III, 	section 31001 et seq.

Furthermore, 	we 	note 	that 	the 	grounds 	for 	reconsideration 	are
limited 	to 	claims 	that 	the Board's 	decision 	contained
"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."
Charging party's 	requests 	allege no 	such 	grounds. 	While
charging 	party may believe 	that 	he 	will 	suffer 	irreparable 	harm
unless 	injunctive 	relief 	is 	granted, 	we 	remain bound 	to 	the
standards 	set 	forth 	in Modesto City Schools 	v. 	PERB 	(1982) 	136
Cal.App.3d 	881. 	Charging party has 	shown 	neither 	that 	it 	is
probable 	that 	an 	unfair practice has 	been 	committed, 	nor 	that
injunctive 	relief 	is 	just 	and proper.
ORDER
For the 	above 	reasons, 	charging party's 	Requests 	for
Reconsideration of 	Injunctive 	Relief Request Nos. 	239 and 	250
are hereby DENIED.