County of Santa Clara (PERB 2267MA)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
MELVIN JONES, JR.,
Charging Party,
V.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CE-646-M
Request for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 2267-M
PERB Decision No. 2267a-M
August 2, 2012
Appearance: 	Melvin Jones, Jr., on his own behalf.
Before Martinez, Chair; Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION
DOWDIN CALVILLO, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on a request for reconsideration by Melvin Jones, Jr. (Jones) of the
Board's decision in County of Santa Clara (2012) PERB Decision No. 2267-M. In that
decision, the Board adopted the decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissing
Jones's unfair practice charge and complaint for failure to state a prima facie case that the
County of Santa Clara (County) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) 1 by:
(1) terminating his employment in retaliation for having engaged in protected activity;
(2) denying 	the right to have an employee organization representative 	at a
and (3) interfering with protected rights.
Board has 	the request for reconsideration and supporting documentation
in light of the relevant law. Based on this review, the Board denies Jones's request for
reconsideration for the reasons discussed below.
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq.

DISCUSSION
Requests for reconsideration
of
a final Board decision are governed by PERB
Regulation 32410(a),2 which states in full:
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. An original and five copies
of
the request for
reconsideration shall be filed with the Board itself in the
headquarters office and shall state with specificity the grounds
claimed and, where applicable, shall specify the page
of
the
record relied on. 	Service and proof
of
service
of
the request
pursuant to Section 32140 are required. 	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.
Because reconsideration may only be granted under "extraordinary circumstances," the
Board applies the regulation's criteria strictly in reviewing requests for reconsideration.
(Regents
of
the University
of
California (2000) PERB Decision No. 1354a-H.) Reiterating the
same facts and arguments made on appeal does not satisfy the requirements
of
PERB
Regulation 32410(a). (San Leandro Unified School District (2007) PERB Decision No. 1924a;
Oakland Unified School District (2004) PERB Decision No. 1645a.) Purported errors
of
law
are not grounds for reconsideration. (California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.)
(2002) PERB Decision No. 1479a-S.)
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
2

Jones submitted five separate filings within the 20-day period for filing a request for
reconsideration under PERB Regulation 3241 0(a). 	Considered in its totality, the filings assert
that the Board's decision contains prejudicial errors of fact concerning the following issues:
(1) the ALJ's credibility determinations; (2) additional evidence submitted by Jones on appeal
before the Board concerning a payroll warrant dated April 24, 2009, and provisions of a
memorandum of understanding; (3) the claim that the ALJ failed to accommodate and/or
consider Jones' s medical condition; (4) the impact of a letter dated April 13, 2009; ( 5) alleged
ex parte communications between the County's counsel and the ALJ; and (6) the ALJ's refusal
to allow Jones to examine the County's counsel as a witness.
Having reviewed the record in light of the request for reconsideration, the Board
concludes that all of the issues identified in the request for reconsideration were adequately
addressed by the ALJ and by the Board in its original decision, and that the request for
reconsideration fails to establish any prejudicial error of fact. 	We further find that the request
fails to establish grounds for reconsideration based upon the discovery of new evidence.
Accordingly, the Board denies the request for reconsideration because it fails to establish either
of the grounds for reconsideration set forth in PERB Regulation 32410(a).
ORDER
The request of Melvin Jones, Jr., for reconsideration of the Public Employment
Relations Board's decision 	County of Santa Clara (2012) 	Decision No. 2267-M is
hereby DENIED.
Chair Martinez and Member Huguenin joined in this Decision.
3