CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD – Request for Reconsideration

Single Topic for Decision 1479Sa

View all topics for Decision 1479Sa

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

The Board did not misinterpret CSEA’s Bylaws and therefore, on reconsideration, there was no prejudicial error of fact. The Board’s holdings regarding its right to review of CSEA’s membership and dismissal provisions and its finding of interference with Landingham’s protected rights was not a misapplication of Board precedent. In objecting to the Board’s findings, CSEA was asserting that the Board made a legal, not a factual, error. Purported errors of law are not grounds for reconsideration. The Board disagrees that its reference to the SEIU hearing officer’s report comprised a prejudicial error of fact, was inappropriate under the hearsay rule, or was inconsistent with PERB Reg. 32176. CSEA’s objections on this issue involve interpretation of legal documents and the rules of evidence, not issues of fact. As stated above, purported errors of law are not grounds for reconsideration. The Board disagrees that its sua sponte review of the ALJ’s reliance upon California State Employees Association (Hackett, et al.) (1993) PERB Decision No. 979-S in order to avoid a “serious mistake of law” was a prejudicial error of fact. Board precedent allows such sua sponte review and has held that reversal of precedent does not constitute grounds for reconsideration. [Apple Valley Unified School District (1990) PERB Order No. Ad-209a].