Decision 2182Ma – California Nurses Association (Rosa)

SF-CO-232-M

Decision Date: August 29, 2011

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 37

Decision Headnotes

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.10000 – Request for Reconsideration

Request for reconsideration that restates arguments made before the Board agent and before the Board on appeal denied. PERB Regulation 32410(a) does not allow a party to reargue or relitigate issues which have already been decided. Board will not consider additional evidence that charging party allegedly failed to provide due to medical condition, in the absence of declaration under penalty of perjury establishing that the proffered evidence meets five specific criteria set PERB Regulation 32410. Criteria not met, where charging party fails to explain how medical condition prevented her from providing the information previously to either the Board agent or the Board itself. Thus, the request fails to establish that the evidence constitutes newly discovered evidence that was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence under PERB Regulation 32410(a). Even if Board were to consider this evidence, it does not demonstrate that the Board’s decision contains prejudicial errors of fact.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)

Request for reconsideration that restates arguments made before the Board agent and before the Board on appeal denied. PERB Regulation 32410(a) does not allow a party to reargue or relitigate issues which have already been decided. Board will not consider additional evidence that charging party allegedly failed to provide due to medical condition, in the absence of declaration under penalty of perjury establishing that the proffered evidence meets five specific criteria set PERB Regulation 32410. Criteria not met, where charging party fails to explain how medical condition prevented her from providing the information previously to either the Board agent or the Board itself. Thus, the request fails to establish that the evidence constitutes newly discovered evidence that was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence under PERB Regulation 32410(a). Even if Board were to consider this evidence, it does not demonstrate that the Board’s decision contains prejudicial errors of fact.