Decision 0818Ea – Oakland Unified School District

Arguments previously considered and rejected do not constitute proper grounds for reconsideration; p. 2. Board did not mischaracterize expert testimony concerning a possible change in status of annuity plan and, in any event, charging party failed to prove that the parties agreed to any change in the plan that could have changed its status; pp. 2-4. Board did not err in stating that charging party's present position is inconsistent with its position in an earlier case, because there was no indication that the new position was taken previously and it is nevertheless not supported by the evidence; p. 4-5. Board has authority to interpret terms of annunity plan incorporated by reference into CBA in order to determine if a unilateral change in policy took place; pp. 5-6. Declaration of attorney for trustees of annunity plan not newly-discovered evidence because issue addressed was intrinsic to dispute and no showing that attorney for trustees of annunity plan not newly-discovered evidence because issue addressed was intrinsic to dispute and no showing that

32410 - Arguments previously considered and rejected do not constitute proper grounds for reconsideration; p. 2. 32410 - Declaration of attorney for trustees of annunity plan not newly-discovered evidence because issue addressed was intrinsic to dispute and no showing that the witness or evidence was not previously available; pp. 6-7.