Stationary Engineers Local 39 (Fisher) (PERB 1940MA)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DARRELL FISHER,
Charging Party,
V.
STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL 39,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CO-158-M
Request for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 1940-M
PERB Decision No. l 940a-M
March 28, 2008
Appearance: Darrell Fisher, on his own behalf.
Before McKeag, Wesley and Rystrom, Members.
DECISION
WESLEY, Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on a request for reconsideration by Darrell Fisher (Fisher) of the Board's
decision in Stationary Engineers Local 39 (Fisher) (2008) PERB Decision No. 1940
(Local 39 (Fisher)). 	In Local 39 (Fisher), the Board dismissed the unfair practice charge
alleging the Stationary Engineers Local 39 breached its duty of fair representation in violation
of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). 1 Fisher seeks reconsideration because he believes
the decision is based on prejudicial errors of fact.
For the reasons set forth below, the request for reconsideration is denied.
DISCUSSION
Requests for reconsideration are governed by PERB Regulation 32410.2 PERB
1
MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500, et seq.
2PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 3 1001,
et seq.

Regulation 32410 provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Any party to a decision of the Board itself may, because of
extraordinary circumstances, file a request to reconsider the
decision within 20 days following the date of service of the
decision. . .. The grounds for requesting 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. A request for reconsideration
based upon the discovery of new evidence must be supported by a
declaration under the penalty of perjury which establishes that the
evidence: (1) was not previously available; (2) could not have
been discovered prior to the hearing with the exercise of
reasonable diligence; (3) was submitted within a reasonable time
of its discovery; (4) is relevant to the issues sought to be
reconsidered; and ( 5) impacts or alters the decision of the
previously decided case.
Simply arguing the same facts that were presented to the Board on appeal does not meet
the requirements of this regulation. Fisher has presented no newly discovered evidence and has
only put forth the arguments he raised on appeal. Fisher has not met either of the grounds for
reconsideration and therefore the request is denied.
ORDER
Darrell Fisher's request for reconsideration of the Board's decision in Stationary
Engineers Local 39 (Fisher) (2008) PERB Decision No. 1940 is hereby DENIED.
Members McKeag and Rystrom joined in this Decision.
2