Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (PERB 2066MA)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
LOLLETT JONES-BOYCE,
Charging Party,
V.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-419-M
Request for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 2066-M
PERB Decision No. 2066a-M
December 30, 2009
Appearance: Lollett Jones-Boyce, on her own behalf.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Acting Chair; McKeag and Neuwald, Members.
DECISION
DOWD IN CALVILLO, Acting Chair: This case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB or Board) on a request for reconsideration by Lollett Jones-Boyce
(Jones-Boyce) of the Board's decision in Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cal(fornia
(2009) PERB Decision No. 2066-M. In that decision, the Board affirmed a Board agent's
dismissal of Jones-Boyce's unfair practice charge for failure to state a prirna facie case that the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (District) retaliated against her for
engaging in activity protected by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). 1
The Board has reviewed the request for reconsideration and supporting documentation
in light of the relevant law. Based on this review, the Board denies Jones-Boyce'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 v1ithin 20 days follov;ing 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.
1\ Reaen+o	s 	n++lAn rr.,,,·versz'ty n+r~u.r~,,,A;a (2000\ 0
	11	t~ VJ tftt;; vr, 	t 	VJ \._,Ut'}VffH 	J D"PDTl D"'"lSl
0
J. L,.1'-JJ 	0n N--- l 1.5 a ll \	vv 	v. ,.., .,. -ii,;
For the most part, Jones-Boyce's request for reconsideration attempts to re-argue her
case by supplying additional factual detail for allegations made in the unfair practice charge.
Reiterating arguments made on appeal does not satisfy PERB Regulation 32410(a).
(San Leandro Unified School District (2007) PERB Decision No. l 924a.) Nor does Jones-
Boyce provide the required sworn declaration regarding the newly presented facts.
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
2

33
Jones-Boyce also contends that the Board's decision contains three prejudicial errors
of
fact: 	(1) she was represented by the American Federation
of
State, County and Municipal
Employees, Local 1902 (AFSCME), at all meetings with her supervisor Bobbi Becker (Becker)
from October 2006 through February 2007; (2) AFSCME representative Carlos Castrillo
(Castrillo) offered to file a grievance on her behalf sometime after
Februar;
21, 2007; and (3)
the Board found no good cause to consider an addendum to her charge filed after the appeal
period ended. Jones-Boyce claims that AFSCME only represented her at some
of
the meetings
with Becker; Castrillo was used by the District to harass her; and the addendum material was
filed to show that her attorney was coercing her into settling her workers' compensation claim.
As to the first two alleged errors, they are insufficient to warrant reconsideration
because the Board's decision did not turn on the presumed truth
of
those allegations. (State
Center Community College District (2002) PERB Decision No. 1471a; Los Angeles County
Education Association, CTAINEA (Burton) (2000) PERB Decision No. 1358a.) Regarding the
third alleged error, the Board made no factual findings in determining Jones-Boyce failed to
show good cause for the Board to consider her late-filed addendum. Rather, it made a legal
ruling based on PERB precedent and the undisputed facts that her addendum was filed after the
period for filing appeal documents ended and no reason for the late filing was provided.
Purported errors
of
law are not grounds for reconsideration. (California State Employees
Association (Hard, et al.) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1479a-S.)
For the above reasons, Jones-Boyce's request for reconsideration must be denied
because it fails to establish either
of
the grounds for reconsideration set forth in PERB
Regulation 32410(a).

44
ORDER
Jones-Boyce's request for reconsideration
of
the Board's decision in Metropolitan
Water District
of
Southern California (2009) PERB Decision No. 2066-M is hereby DENIED.
l\1embers
~v1cKeag
and
1'-Jeu\vald
joined in this Decision.