The Department of Veterans Affairs has re-terminated a labor contract with its largest union \u2014 a move that a federal judge called \u201cblatant disrespect\u201d for her order to restore it.<\/p>\n
Earlier this month, a federal judge in Rhode Island\u00a0ordered the VA to restore its collective bargaining agreement<\/a> with the American Federation of Government Employees\u2019 National VA Council while the case continues. That contract covers more than 300,000 VA employees.<\/p>\n U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose determined that VA Secretary Doug Collins \u201cfavored some unions over others,\u201d when the VA implemented a March 2025 executive order eliminating collective bargaining at more than 20 agencies \u2014 including the VA.<\/p>\n The VA restored its master collective bargaining agreement with AFGE\/NVAC days after the court\u2019s preliminary injunction. But\u00a0court filings show<\/a>\u00a0the department continued to deny benefits and workplace protections outlined in the contract to covered employees.<\/p>\n ]]><\/p>\n Collins told AFGE leadership in a memo Thursday that even with the court\u2019s preliminary injunction in place, the department must still comply with the underlying\u00a0executive order<\/a>.<\/p>\n Attorneys representing AFGE told the court that other agencies have attempted similar end-runs around court orders.<\/p>\n Last December, the Department of Homeland Security sought to terminate AFGE\u2019s collective bargaining agreement<\/a> covering Transportation Security Administration employees, even though a federal judge had earlier in 2025 blocked DHS from dissolving the labor contract.<\/a><\/p>\n In January, a federal judge in Washington State ruled that DHS violated an earlier preliminary injunction<\/a> keeping the AFGE-TSA collective bargaining agreement in place, and granted an emergency motion to prohibit TSA from eliminating\u00a0the labor agreement.<\/p>\n The\u00a01978 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute<\/a> (FSLMRS) grants most federal employees the right to collectively bargain, but exempts agencies that work in national security. President Donald Trump\u2019s March 2025 executive order greatly expanded the portfolio of agencies with national security missions. He signed a second executive order last August<\/a>, adding more agencies to the collective-bargaining exemption.<\/p>\n Collins wrote in his memo to AFGE that even with the court\u2019s preliminary injunction in place, the VA is still excluded from FSLMRS coverage under the executive order, and that the collective bargaining agreement \u201ccannot operate without FSLMRS.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe CBA was drafted with the expectation it would operate and be enforced under the provisions of the FSLMRS. Key provisions of the CBA are incoherent apart from that expectation,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n ]]><\/p>\n \u201cVA is accordingly terminating this CBA on national security grounds,\u201d Collins added.<\/p>\n Collins wrote in his memo to AFGE that Trump has determined the VA \u201chas a primary function of intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.\u201d In times of war, the VA is designed by law as a backstop health care provider for military service members.<\/p>\n \u201cThe president is aware of both the important national security role VA performs and how collective bargaining affects VA\u2019s ability to perform that mission,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n AFGE filed a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction<\/a> on March 20, arguing that hundreds of thousands of VA employees \u201care irreparably harmed each day that defendants fail to comply with the preliminary injunction.\u201d<\/p>\n Tyler Becker, a Justice Department attorney representing the VA, told the court on Friday that by re-terminating the contract, AFGE\u2019s motion to enforce the court\u2019s preliminary injunction was \u201cmoot.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe plaintiffs haven\u2019t put before the court anything at this point that would suggest that they are challenging the re-terminate or anything that would allow the court to enjoin the re-termination,\u201d Becker said.<\/p>\n DuBose said that the VA\u2019s disregard of her preliminary injunction \u201cthrows everything that the court attempted to do to clarify into chaos.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFor you to suggest that all of the work that was done prior to the re-termination is kind of mooted out, and we kind of disregard, is really a blatant disrespect for not just this court\u2019s order, but for the rule of law,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n DuBose is giving the VA until the close of business on Tuesday, March 31, to explain why she shouldn\u2019t deem the re-termination of the collective bargaining agreement as being in contempt of the court\u2019s order.<\/p>\n ]]><\/p>\n The VA, in a\u00a0motion for clarification<\/a>\u00a0filed March 20, questioned whether the judge\u2019s preliminary injunction would allow the department to re-terminate the collective bargaining agreement \u201cfor any reason before its August 8, 2026 expiration.\u201d<\/p>\n DuBose clarified that the VA could only re-terminate the contract \u201cfor lawful reasons.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThere is a process that the defendant certainly could follow to seek redress from either a higher court to stay this court\u2019s preliminary order, to seek a rehearing because of changed circumstances. None of that happened here,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Travis Silva, an attorney representing AFGE, told the court that there\u2019s \u201cno doubt that the defendants are openly defying the court\u2019s preliminary injunction.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThey didn\u2019t appeal, they didn\u2019t move for a stay. They know how to do those things. They haven\u2019t done them for whatever tactical reason, and so they need to comply,\u201d Silva said.<\/p>\n The Justice Department notified the court<\/a> on Friday afternoon that it has appealed its case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n The VA was\u00a0one of the first departments to terminate union contracts<\/a>\u00a0following the March 2025 executive order.<\/p>\n The Office of Personnel Management initially told agencies to hold off on terminating labor contracts with unions while legal challenges were still pending. But\u00a0OPM reversed course last month,\u00a0<\/a>when it advised agencies to proceed with either amending or fully canceling their collective bargaining agreements.<\/p>\n In granting her preliminary injunction, DuBose wrote that she did not determine whether the Trump administration exceeded its legal authority when it issued its executive orders rolling back collective bargaining rights.<\/p>\n The legality of the executive order is still under review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n