Decision 2667Pa – San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
LA-PC-16-M
Decision Date: November 7, 2019
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Petitioner, Transit Electromechanics Union, requested reconsideration of the Board’s decision in PERB Decision No. 2667-P, which denied its petition to sever a group of skilled craft workers from the general bargaining unit of the transit system’s light rail component.
Disposition: Precedential
The Board denied the request for reconsideration, finding that Petitioner failed to identify any prejudicial errors of fact in the underlying decision or present any newly discovered evidence in accordance with reconsideration procedures. Instead, Petitioner’s request consisted solely of arguments challenging the Board’s legal analysis and conclusions in the underlying decision, which cannot form a basis for reconsideration under PERB Regulation 32410.
Decision Headnotes
1107.10000 – Request for Reconsideration
The grounds for reconsideration are limited to claims that: “(1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence.” (PERB Reg. 32410(a).) A party cannot use the reconsideration process to register its disagreement with the Board’s legal analysis, to re-litigate issues that have already been decided, or simply to ask the Board to try again. (p. 2) The Board denied the request for reconsideration because it failed to address either of the required criteria but challenged solely the Board’s legal analysis and conclusions in the underlying decision, which is not a basis for reconsideration. (Ibid.)
1503.01000 – In General
The grounds for reconsideration are limited to claims that: “(1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence.” (PERB Reg. 32410(a).) A party cannot use the reconsideration process to register its disagreement with the Board’s legal analysis, to re-litigate issues that have already been decided, or simply to ask the Board to try again. (p. 2) The Board denied the request for reconsideration because it failed to address either of the required criteria but challenged solely the Board’s legal analysis and conclusions in the underlying decision, which is not a basis for reconsideration. (Ibid.)
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
The grounds for reconsideration are limited to claims that: “(1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence.” (PERB Reg. 32410(a).) A party cannot use the reconsideration process to register its disagreement with the Board’s legal analysis, to re-litigate issues that have already been decided, or simply to ask the Board to try again. (p. 2) The Board denied the request for reconsideration because it failed to address either of the required criteria but challenged solely the Board’s legal analysis and conclusions in the underlying decision, which is not a basis for reconsideration. (Ibid.)