Decision 1479Sa – California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.)
SA-CO-225-S
Decision Date: October 21, 2002
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: CSEA requested reconsideration of the Board’s decision in No. 1479. CSEA alleged that the Board misinterpreted CSEA’s bylaws, improperly used motive for a finding of “interference,” intervened in CSEA’s internal union affairs, and inappropriately relied on the SEIU hearing officer’s report.
Disposition: The Board denied reconsideration. CSEA failed to show extraordinary circumstances or prejudicial error of fact, as required by PERB 32410(a).
Perc Vol: 27
Perc Index: 2
Decision Headnotes
300.13000 – Holding Union Office
Union member/officer has protected right to reasonable internal disciplinary procedures and the reasonable application of those procedures.
300.17000 – Other
Union member/officer has protected right to reasonable internal disciplinary procedures and the reasonable application of those procedures.
801.03000 – Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership
Union’s failure to establish or follow reasonable disciplinary procedures violates section 3515.5 and interferes with employee’s protected rights under section 3519.5(b).
801.04000 – Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc.
Union’s failure to establish or follow reasonable disciplinary procedures violates section 3515.5 and interferes with employee’s protected rights under section 3519.5(b).
801.08000 – Other
Union’s failure to establish or follow reasonable disciplinary procedures violates section 3515.5 and interferes with employee’s protected rights under section 3519.5(b).
1107.10000 – Request for Reconsideration
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].
1107.18000 – Review of Findings Not Excepted To
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].
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
CSEA has not shown the existence of extraordinary circumstances either by proving that the decision in California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1479-S contained prejudicial error of fact or by meeting any of the limited criteria found in PERB Reg. 32140(a). Purported errors of law are not grounds for reconsideration under PERB Reg. 32140(a). The Board disagrees that its reference to the SEIU hearing officer’s report was inconsistent with the provisions regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence under PERB Reg. 32176.