Los Rios Community College District and Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, Local 2279 (PERB 2614EA)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ANNETTE (BARUDONI) DEGLOW,
Charging Party,
v.
LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. SA-CE-2912-E
Request for Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 2614
PERB Decision No. 2614a
August 8, 2019
ANNETTE (BARUDONI) DEGLOW,
Charging Party,
v.
LOS RIOS COLLEGE FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS, LOCAL 2279,
Respondent.
Case No. SA-CO-622-E
Appearances: Annette (Barudoni) Deglow, on her own behalf; Churchwell White by Meg
Wilson, Attorney, for Los Rios Community College District.
Before Banks, Krantz, and Paulson, Members.
DECISION
KRANTZ, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on a request by Annette Deglow (Deglow) for the Board to reconsider its decision in
Los Rios Community College District and Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, Local 2279
(2018) PERB Decision No. 2614 (Los Rios CCD).
In the underlying matter, Deglow appealed the Office of General Counsel’s (OGC)
decision to dismiss two unfair practice charges Deglow filed on March 14, 2018, Case
Nos. SA-CE-2912-E and SA-CO-622-E (March 2018 charges). In her March 2018 charges and
on appeal, Deglow sought “immediate re-consideration” of two unfair practice charges that the

________________________
Los Rios Teachers Association, CTA/NEA had filed, in 1986, against the Los Rios Community
College District (District) and the Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, Local 2779 (Federation),
respectively (the 1986 charges). PERB dismissed the 1986 charges in 1987.
In Los Rios CCD, supra, PERB Decision No. 2614, we affirmed OGC’s decision to
dismiss the March 2018 charges. We explained that Deglow lacked standing to appeal PERB’s
dismissal of the 1986 charges and that any such appeal was untimely by more than a quarter
century. (Id. at p. 4.) Deglow now seeks reconsideration.
A party may ask the Board to reconsider a final decision if: “(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, subd. (a);1 Regents of the University of California
(Davis) (2011) PERB Decision No. 2101a-H, p. 3.) A party may not use the reconsideration
process to register its disagreement with the Board’s legal analysis, to relitigate issues that have
already been decided, or simply to ask the Board to “try again.” (Chula Vista Elementary School
District (2004) PERB Decision No. 1557a, p. 2; see also Redwoods Community College District
(1994) PERB Decision No. 1047a, pp. 2-3.)
Deglow has not established any prejudicial errors of fact in Los Rios CCD, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2614, nor has Deglow pointed to any newly discovered evidence that would alter
our decision. Instead, Deglow seeks to relitigate issues we have already decided. Her
reconsideration request is therefore frivolous.
Request for Sanctions
The District renews its request for sanctions. Deglow has a lengthy history of filing
repetitive unfair practice charges that feature frivolous claims and/or which seek to relitigate
1 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
2

issues that have already been resolved, and the Board has previously threatened to impose
monetary sanctions for further filings. (See, e.g., Los Rios CCD, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2614, pp. 5-6, and earlier cases cited therein.) In Los Rios CCD, we deferred any decision
regarding monetary sanctions until Deglow’s additional charges—pending with OGC—have
been resolved. We take the same approach now, and reiterate our previous notice to Deglow that
she may be subject to monetary sanctions should she continue to abuse PERB processes.
Moreover, the litigation sanctions ordered in Los Rios CCD, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2614 remain in effect. Thus, in future proceedings at any level of PERB regarding matters
brought by Deglow, all other parties to such matters remain advised that they may refrain from
any and all responsive filings unless and until PERB directs otherwise. With respect to any
unfair practice charge that Deglow has on file, or files in the future, a respondent need not file a
response unless and until OGC notifies the respondent that the charge raises colorable new
allegations of violations, and that a response is therefore required. In contrast, if a new or
pending charge merely seeks to litigate or relitigate frivolous allegations, OGC should proceed to
process the case according to PERB Regulation 32620, subdivision (d), without requiring any
respondent to file a response.
ORDER
Annette (Barudoni) Deglow’s Request for Reconsideration of Los Rios Community
College District and Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, Local 2279 (2018) PERB
Decision No. 2614 is DENIED. The District’s renewed request for monetary sanctions in Case
Nos. SA-CE-2912-E and SA-CO-622-E is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The litigation
sanctions imposed pursuant to PERB Decision No. 2614 remain in effect.
Members Banks and Paulson joined in this Decision.
3