Collective Bargaining and Labor Relations - AFT
Negotiations
The collective bargaining process is critical to maintaining effective working conditions for all employees. The San Mateo County Community College District (SMCCCD) provides information to keep all employees and the SMCCCD community informed on the process and status of collective bargaining with the District's three employee unions. Please note that negotiation meetings are open only to the bargaining representatives and not to the public or the District community.
San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers 1493
View Accessibile 2022-2025 Contract UA
View Prior Contract (2019-2022 Contract)
Article 6: Workload (2024 Reopener)
Part-Time Faculty Healthcare 2024 - 2026 MOU
Negotiation Status
Negotiations for the 2025 - 2028 contract, known as successor bargaining, began February 7, 2025, for the next Federation of Teachers 1493 contract with the San Mateo County Community College District. At each session, AFT 1493 or the District introduces proposals and counter-proposals, working towards tentative agreements.
Negotiation Summary
Dates |
Proposals Discussed |
| February 7, 2025 | |
| February 21, 2025 |
|
| February 28, 2025 |
|
| March 7th, 2025 |
|
| March 21st, 2025 |
|
| March 28th, 2025 |
|
| April 11th, 2025 |
|
| April 18, 2025 |
|
| April 25, 2025 |
|
| May 2, 2025 |
|
San Mateo County CCD Negotiations Updates
May 2, 2025 Session
On May 2, 2025, the parties negotiated from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. AFT informed the District that the parties had a tentative agreement on Article 25, “Reasonable Accommodation ,” based on the District’s Counterproposal 4 that was presented to AFT on April 18, 2025.
April 25, 2025 Session
On April 25, 2025, the parties negotiated from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
The District’s Chief Financial Officer made a budget presentation to the AFT bargaining team, and a copy of the presentation was provided to AFT following the presentation: Budget Presentation AFT 04.25.25.pptx.
The District’s Executive Vice Chancellor, Administrative Services, informed AFT that several of its economic proposals to the District would cost approximately $30 million. AFT requested that the District provide a written summary of how it arrived at the foregoing cost estimate, which the District provided to AFT via email on April 30, 2025: Cost Estimate AFT Article 8913 and Appendix F.pdf .”
In summary, and as set forth in further detail in the written cost estimate provided to AFT, below are the estimated costs to the District regarding several of AFT’s economic proposals:
|
Proposed 20% COLA for 3 years for all members (8%, 7%, and 5%) |
$20,400,000 |
|
Proposed Expansion of Instructional Adjunct Covered by Parity |
$2,150,000 |
|
Proposed Expansion of Parity to Full-Time Overload |
$4,300,000 |
|
Proposed Expansion to Health Benefit Premium Contribution |
$3,600,000 |
|
Proposed Expansion of District contribution to Article 13 Professional Development Leave Program |
$225,000 |
|
Proposed Expansion of Class Adjustments |
$2,375,000 |
|
Total Estimated Cost |
$33,050,000 |
AFT informed the District that the parties had a tentative agreement on Article 17, “Grievance Procedure,” based on the District’s Counterproposal 4 that was presented to AFT on April 18,
2025.
April 18, 2025
On April 18, 2025, the parties negotiated from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and passed a total of seven proposals.
March 7 through April 11, 2025 Sessions
During the March 7, 2025, negotiation session, AFT presented its counterproposal 4 regarding ground rules in response to the District’s February 28, 2025, proposal 3. Specifically, AFT rejected the District’s proposal to allow District employees and Board of Trustees members to attend the parties’ joint negotiation sessions, which would be on a non-precedential basis and limited to the current round of negotiations only. Instead, AFT’s counterproposal 4 continued to propose language requiring the District to agree that the parties had an “established practice” of employee observers being permitted to attend the joint negotiation sessions and that such “established practice” continue for this current round of negotiations which the District has summarily rejected each time it has been presented by AFT.
During the March 28, 2025, negotiation session, the District presented its proposal 4 regarding ground rules in response to AFT’s March 7, 2025, counterproposal 4. The District again informed AFT that it disagreed with AFT’s assertion of any “established practice” of employee observers and that it would not agree to any language regarding any such “established practice.” Therefore, because the parties could not reach agreement regarding the parameters of allowing observers, the District explained that it proposes to follow the statutory default rule in the Educational Employment Relations Act (“EERA”) (Gov. Code, § 3549.1) of no observers at the parties’ negotiations, unless otherwise mutually agreed to.
On April 11, 2025, during AFT’s presentation of its counterproposal 5 regarding ground rules, AFT continued to propose language requiring the District to agree that the parties had an “established practice” of employee observers being permitted to attend the joint negotiation sessions and that such “established practice” continue for this current round of negotiations. In their presentation, AFT’s Chief Negotiator inaccurately alleged that the District had engaged in regressive bargaining based on the District’s February 28, 2025, proposal 3 and the District’s March 28, 2025, proposal 4. The District’s Chief Negotiator denied AFT’s unfounded regressive bargaining allegation and explained that, because AFT repeatedly rejected the District’s condition of allowing observers on a non-precedential basis and for this current round of negotiations only, AFT’s assertion that the District had engaged in regressive bargaining is unfounded. To be clear, the District has never agreed that the parties have an “established practice” of having observers.
The parties’ next scheduled negotiation session is April 18, 2025.
No tentative agreement has been reached yet on any Article presented or on the Ground Rules.
February 28, 2025 Session
Continued Negotiations Regarding Whether Observers Should be Present During Negotiations
During AFT’s presentation of its counterproposal 3 regarding ground rules, AFT asserted that the parties had an “established practice” of permitting employee observers to attend the joint negotiation sessions, and therefore, it proposed to continue such alleged “established practice” for the current joint negotiation sessions.
During the District’s presentation of its Proposal 3 in response to AFT’s Counterproposal 3, the District expressed disagreement with AFT’s claim of any “established practice,” a legal term contingent on meeting specific criteria. Nevertheless, in the interest of efficiency and to facilitate progress, the District proposed that, on a non-precedential basis and for this current round of negotiations only, both District employees and Trustees may attend the parties’ joint negotiation sessions as observers.
The parties’ next scheduled negotiation session is March 7, 2025.
February 21, 2025 Session
Productive and Efficient Negotiation Session
On February 21, 2025, the parties commenced negotiations at 1:30 p.m. and continued until 5:30 p.m. At approximately 5:04 p.m., each party agreed that they did not currently have any other proposals to present to the other party and that the remaining time would be best served by each party returning to their own caucus to prepare for the next negotiation session.
Prior to concluding negotiations on February 21, 2025, the District’s and AFT’s Chief Negotiators thanked each party for a “productive” and “efficient” session. Moreover, AFT’s Chief Negotiator stated that AFT really appreciated the District scheduling weekly negotiation sessions through May 16, 2025, in response to AFT’s request for scheduling weekly negotiation sessions. The District Chancellor also noted that she worked with the Board of Trustees to calendar additional special closed sessions solely for negotiation purposes so that meetings with the Board would not hold up the parties’ forward progress on negotiations.
During the February 21, 2025, session, the parties presented and exchanged various proposals and counterproposals as stated above.
Statutory Default Rule of No Observers During Negotiations
During the parties’ exchange of their respective proposals and counterproposals regarding ground rules, the parties disagreed regarding whether observers should be present during the parties’ joint negotiation sessions. Because the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the District’s Chief Negotiator informed AFT that the District will follow the statutory default rule in the Educational Employment Relations Act (“EERA”) (Gov. Code, § 3549.1) of no observers at the parties’ negotiations, unless otherwise mutually agreed to. (See Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Dec. No. 2485.)
This means the parties’ joint negotiation sessions will be closed to the public, press, and any other persons unless otherwise mutually agreed to. Only each party’s core bargaining team members, the District Chancellor, and AFT Co-Presidents may attend the parties’ joint negotiation sessions. The District’s Chief Negotiator explained that keeping the negotiations among each party’s designated bargaining representatives and their leaders would be more productive and allow for more transparent and open communications at the joint sessions.
The parties’ next scheduled negotiation session is February 28, 2025
February 7, 2025 Session
To promote open communication with the community, employees and other educational partners and interested individuals, and to keep everyone informed about the status of San Mateo County Community College District (“District”) negotiations with San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers, Local 1493, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (“AFT”), the Board of Trustees has asked its team to provide factual and timely updates about negotiations with AFT.
Background of Prior Successor Contract Negotiations with AFT
During the last round of negotiations for a successor contract, the District and AFT negotiated from approximately May 2022 through October 2023, and reached an agreement that was ratified and approved by November 29, 2023, almost 17 months after the prior contract expired on June 30, 2022.
Pre-Planning and Proactive Efforts to Create Healthier and More Productive Negotiations
Pursuant to the District and AFT’s common goals to create a healthier environment for collaborative, productive, efficient, and timely negotiations, District Chancellor Dr. Melissa Moreno met with AFT Co-Presidents Rika Yonemura-Fabian and Tamara Perkins, starting in Fall 2024, to discuss what things they could do differently for this upcoming round of negotiations to achieve their common goals, among other things.
For example, in or about late October 2024, the District and AFT leaders agreed to try to complete bargaining by June 30, 2025. To that end, Chancellor Dr. Moreno proposed scheduling weekly negotiation sessions to occur every Friday from 10 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. starting on January 10, 2025 and through June 30, 2025. AFT Co-Presidents Perkins and Yonemura-Fabian responded that they agreed to scheduling weekly negotiation meetings on every Friday, but due to some of their negotiators’ schedules, they requested that the negotiations occur on Friday afternoons at specified time frames. AFT also requested that negotiations commence at the beginning of February 2025. Here is an excerpt of an email exchange with the Chancellor:
Also, weekly meetings sound GREAT! We are excited to hear that we can do that. Unfortunately, the suggested time does not work for some of our negotiators. Friday 1:30-5:30pm, though, would work great, except for the first Fridays when division meetings happen. Can we have 2-5:30pm, only for the first Fridays, and for the rest of Fridays 1:30-5:30pm? Please let us know what you think,
Tamara and Rika
The District agreed to AFT’s requested schedule and published the following eighteen (18) scheduled negotiation sessions on its website, as follows:
February 7, 2025
February 21, 2025
February 28, 2025
March 7, 2025
March 14, 2025
March 21, 2025
March 28, 2025
April 11, 2025
April 18, 2025
April 25, 2025
May 2, 2025
May 9, 2025
May 16, 2025
May 30, 2025 (cancelled by AFT)
June 6, 2025 (cancelled by AFT)
June 13, 2025 (cancelled by AFT)
June 20, 2025 (cancelled by AFT)
June 27, 2025 (cancelled by AFT)
Moreover, the AFT Co-Presidents raised concerns about the District’s Chief Negotiator
from prior negotiations and requested that the District change its Chief Negotiator
for the upcoming negotiations. The District Chancellor stated that if the District
would consider changing its Chief Negotiator, than AFT should consider doing the same
for a fresh start for negotiations. Although the District was not required to change
its Chief Negotiator, in the spirit of collaboration and doing things differently
for this round of negotiations, the District did change its Chief Negotiator for this
round of negotiations. In addition, the Chancellor worked with the Board of Trustees
to add special closed sessions to the calendar for the sole purpose of negotiations
to be sure that finding time to meet with the Board would not hold up forward progress.
On January 15, 2025, the District and AFT leaders met to discuss the logistics of
bargaining and agreed to at least six (6) items regarding such logistics. Present
at this meeting on behalf of the District were Chancellor Dr. Moreno, Richard Storti,
Executive Vice Chancellor – Administrative Services, and Julie Johnson, Chief Human
Resources Officer. Present on behalf of AFT were Chet Lexvold, Joaquin Rivera-Contreras,
and AFT Co-Presidents Rika Yonemura-Fabian and Tamara Perkins.
On January 16, 2025, Chancellor Dr. Moreno sent a summary of the six (6) logistical
items that the parties discussed and agreed to, and she invited any feedback and/or
corrections. On January 17, 2025, AFT Co-President Yonemura-Fabian responded via email
and stated in relevant part: “Although the issues we are negotiating could be complex,
I think there is much we can fix by instrumentally fixing the procedures and to my
understanding, it is our first time to explicitly do this. I appreciate the process!”
On February 7, 2025, Chancellor Dr. Moreno emailed AFT Co-Presidents Perkins and Yonemura-Fabian
and provided them with the proposed agenda at 11:16 a.m., approximately three hours
prior to the parties’ negotiations. The agenda included a discussion of finalizing
the ground rules for the parties’ negotiations, as well as listed the agreed-upon
weekly Friday negotiation sessions through June 30, 2025.
What Are Ground Rules?
The Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) has held that ground rules are a mandatory subject of bargaining, and the parties must negotiate over a grounds rules proposal in the same manner as they must bargain over proposals about substantive terms or conditions of employment. (County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M.)
Examples of ground rules include but are not limited to the following: time and place for bargaining to start; the order of issues to be discussed; the final settlement conditions that may be imposed; questions of ratification and approval; whether negotiations should be confidential; whether negotiations should be public with observers present; whether recording of negotiations is allowed; and a variety of other similar procedural matters. In short, PERB has held that “ground rules directly regulate the bargaining relationship between the parties.” (County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M; Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision Number 2485; Ross School District Board of Trustees (1978) PERB Decision No. 48.)
In determining that ground rules constitute a mandatory subject of bargaining, PERB explained that ground rules are “the most straightforward path to improving communication between parties, maximizing their opportunities to achieve a strong relationship, and preventing unilateral self-help designed to create a more favorable playing field for one side in future negotiations.” (County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M.)
District and AFT Negotiations Commence on February 7, 2025
The negotiations commenced on February 7, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. and were scheduled to conclude at 5:30 p.m. The parties spent approximately ten (10) minutes with introductions, including the District introducing its Co-Chief Negotiators Ellen Wu and Dr. Storti, and AFT introducing its Chief Negotiator, Monica Malamud.
The District then presented its ground rules proposal and explained the rationale behind its proposal, which took approximately forty-five (45) minutes. The District also e-mailed its written ground rules proposal to AFT. (See District’s ground rules proposal .) At approximately 3:24 p.m., AFT asked to caucus to review the District’s ground rules proposal, and AFT spent approximately twenty (20) minutes in caucus. At approximately 3:54 p.m., AFT asked for the parties to return to the joint session.
In the joint session, AFT’s Chief Negotiator stated that the AFT bargaining team could not agree to the five (5) negotiation sessions scheduled between May 22, 2025, and June 30, 2025, because this was during their summer recess, and they did not know their schedules. This statement was different and in apparent contradiction to what AFT Co-Presidents Perkins and Yonemura-Fabian agreed to with Chancellor Dr. Moreno back in October 2024 regarding the scheduled weekly negotiation sessions through June 30, 2025.
Moreover, during the February 7, 2025 negotiation session, the District asked AFT that, when the parties reconvened at their next session on February 21, 2025, to provide dates that AFT was available in order to reschedule the five (5) dates that they were now requesting to cancel. AFT declined to provide such available dates at the next session.
Regarding the District’s ground rules proposal, AFT’s Chief Negotiator stated that AFT’s response was “No” and that AFT was not interested in negotiating ground rules. The District’s Chief Negotiator explained that by law, ground rules are a mandatory subject of bargaining, and the parties must negotiate over the District’s ground rules proposal in the same manner as they must negotiate over any other mandatory subject of bargaining.
At approximately 4:20 p.m., AFT asked to return to caucus to further discuss the District’s ground rules proposal. AFT remained in their caucus for approximately one hour and four minutes and requested to return to the joint session at 5:24 p.m.
Because the parties agreed to conclude the negotiation session at 5:30 p.m., there was insufficient remaining time for AFT to present their written counterproposal to the District’s ground rules proposal. AFT e-mailed its written counterproposal to the District. (See AFT’s counterproposal .) Before the session concluded at 5:30 p.m., the District proposed setting the agenda for the next negotiation session and asked AFT to provide the District during the next session with additional dates they were available to negotiate, and AFT declined both requests.
The parties’ next scheduled negotiation session is February 21, 2025.