Decision A446Ea – Lake Elsinore Unified School District

LA-CE-6082-E

Decision Date: May 15, 2018

Decision Type: Administrative Appeal

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

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

Because a public school employer’s request for reconsideration concerned a Board decision resolving an appeal from an administrative determination, there was no factual record to reconsider. Prior board precedent had determined that reconsideration is not available for decisions arising from administrative appeals. There are only two grounds for reconsideration authorized by PERB Regulation 32410: (1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party requesting reconsideration has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Regulation’s focus on prejudicial error of fact or newly-discovered evidence indicates that the reconsideration procedure is limited to Board decisions based on a proposed decision and developed factual record following a formal hearing or stipulated record. (pp. 3-5.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.01000 – In General

Because a public school employer’s request for reconsideration concerned a Board decision resolving an appeal from an administrative determination, there was no factual record to reconsider. Prior board precedent had determined that reconsideration is not available for decisions arising from administrative appeals. There are only two grounds for reconsideration authorized by PERB Regulation 32410: (1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party requesting reconsideration has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Regulation’s focus on prejudicial error of fact or newly-discovered evidence indicates that the reconsideration procedure is limited to Board decisions based on a proposed decision and developed factual record following a formal hearing or stipulated record. (pp. 3-5.)

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

Because a public school employer’s request for reconsideration concerned a Board decision resolving an appeal from an administrative determination, there was no factual record to reconsider. Prior board precedent had determined that reconsideration is not available for decisions arising from administrative appeals. There are only two grounds for reconsideration authorized by PERB Regulation 32410: (1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party requesting reconsideration has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Regulation’s focus on prejudicial error of fact or newly-discovered evidence indicates that the reconsideration procedure is limited to Board decisions based on a proposed decision and developed factual record following a formal hearing or stipulated record. (pp. 3-5.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

Because a public school employer’s request for reconsideration concerned a Board decision resolving an appeal from an administrative determination, there was no factual record to reconsider. Prior board precedent had determined that reconsideration is not available for decisions arising from administrative appeals. There are only two grounds for reconsideration authorized by PERB Regulation 32410: (1) the decision of the Board itself contains prejudicial errors of fact, or (2) the party requesting reconsideration has newly discovered evidence which was not previously available and could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Regulation’s focus on prejudicial error of fact or newly-discovered evidence indicates that the reconsideration procedure is limited to Board decisions based on a proposed decision and developed factual record following a formal hearing or stipulated record. (pp. 3-5.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.20000 – Other

The Board found that the District’s request for reconsideration was without even arguable merit, as it failed to comply with the basic requirements of the reconsideration regulation and recent PERB decisional law directly on point, and it included no serious argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law to permit reconsideration of administrative determinations. However, the Board denied Charging Parties’ request for sanctions because there was no evidence the District’s reconsideration motion was brought in bad faith. PERB precedent requires that, to obtain monetary sanctions, including attorney’s fees or other reasonable litigation expenses, the moving party must demonstrate that the claim, defense, motion or other action or tactic was “without arguable merit” and pursued in “bad faith.” (pp. 5-6.)

1205.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
1205.04000 – Attorneys Fees and Costs

The Board found that the District’s request for reconsideration was without even arguable merit, as it failed to comply with the basic requirements of the reconsideration regulation and recent PERB decisional law directly on point, and it included no serious argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law to permit reconsideration of administrative determinations. However, the Board denied Charging Parties’ request for sanctions because there was no evidence the District’s reconsideration motion was brought in bad faith. PERB precedent requires that, to obtain monetary sanctions, including attorney’s fees or other reasonable litigation expenses, the moving party must demonstrate that the claim, defense, motion or other action or tactic was “without arguable merit” and pursued in “bad faith.” (pp. 5-6.)