SAN MARCOS — A contract dispute between Palomar College’s classified employees and the district has escalated to a state labor complaint over pay, policy and contract language.
Palomar College’s Council of Classified Employees (CCE) and the district have been at odds since June over a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the 2025-26 year. In August, it became clear to CCE the district would not apply the 2.3% COLA, and the union filed an unfair-practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) on Aug. 18. The district filed its response on Sept. 18, the final day allowed under PERB procedures.
At the center of the dispute is the language from Article 12, Section 1 of the CCE contract, which reads:
“If the projected COLA for 2025–2026 is above three percent (3%), on or before April 1, 2025, CCE and the District agree to meet and discuss the development and implementation of a comprehensive Resource Allocation Formula (RAF) model effective on or after July 1, 2025.”
While The Telescope’s previous coverage noted only that a PERB case had been filed, this update reflects the most current information from the union’s unfair-practice charge and the district’s response. The filings, obtained via a public records request, detail both sides’ positions on Article 12.
| CCE’s Position | District’s Position |
|---|---|
| Main claim The district violated Article 12 by refusing to apply a 2.3% COLA to the 2025–26 salary schedule. |
Main claim The contract only required COLAs in 2023–24 and 2024–25 and imposes no obligation for 2025–26. |
| Article 12 interpretation CCE states the intent, documented in bargaining notes, was that if the state COLA is 3% or less, it passes through automatically.Language about a Resource Allocation Formula (RAF) would apply only if COLA exceeded 3%. |
Article 12 interpretation The district argues the written language governs.Article 12 requires a meeting if the projected COLA is above 3%, but it does not mandate an automatic increase below that threshold or in 2025–26. |
Evidence cited
|
Evidence cited
|
| Legal argument Withholding the 2.3% constitutes repudiation and a unilateral change in violation of California Government Code Section 3543.5. |
Legal argument No unilateral change occurred because the Collective Bargaining Agreement did not promise the increase.PERB applies the plain-language rule to contracts. |
| Fiscal context CCE states the district has sizable reserves, so ability to pay is not the issue. |
Fiscal context Palomar is in “Hold Harmless” status under the Student-Centered Funding Formula and did not receive a state-funded COLA for 2025–26Funding the raise would be a local cost. |
| Current action PERB unfair practice charge filed in August. |
Current action District position statement filed, denying violation and citing contractual and fiscal limits. |
Requested outcome
|
Requested outcome
|
The Article 12 dispute isn’t settled yet, and both sides are waiting for the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to decide if the complaint heads to a hearing or gets tossed. If it moves ahead, PERB could order mediation, settlement talks, or a hearing before an administrative law judge, something that could take months.
For now, classified staff continue working without the 2.3% cost-of-living adjustment they say they are owed, while the district maintains that the contract language does not require it.
