Judge DuBose, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, found that the union is likely to succeed in its claim that the termination violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act and that it “seems substantially motivated by the Plaintiffs’ history and frequency of vocally opposing changes to labor policies. Image: Charles-McClintock Wilson / Shutterstock.com
By: FEDweek StaffUpdated: A federal judge suggested the VA could be held in contempt for failure to abide by a preliminary injunction reinstating union rights there, and ordered the VA to notify unions that a “re-termination” letter it sent this week has no force or effect.
“Defendants must immediately notify bargaining units that, pursuant to the Preliminary Injunction issued by the Court on March 13, 2026, the re-termination letter shall not be given any force or effect, the Master CBA … shall remain applicable and binding in both form and substance, and the currently pending grievances and arbitrations submitted under the Master CBA will continue to be processed,” wrote U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose on Friday.
The judge had issued a clarification this week that “all parties covered by [the CBAs] will continue to be covered by this contract until it is terminated or amended in a lawful manner.” The VA followed that up with a “status report” informing the court that it re-terminated the contract, but the judge wasn’t impressed.
“The Defendants shall show cause by the end of day Tuesday, March 31 why the Court should not consider the re-termination letter ostensibly filed as a Status Report on March 26 to be in blatant violation of the Preliminary Injunction Order in place and therefore in contempt of this Court.”
“The VA told our members they had no union. They tried to strip away the contract that was won over decades of service by the nurses, housekeepers, claims processors and clinicians who show up every day to serve our nation’s veterans. And when a federal judge told them to stop, they tried to do it again mere hours before the hearing,” said Everett Kelley, National President, American Federation of Government Employees.
Preliminary injunction
At question is a preliminary injunction issued in March reinstating the union’s master contract and related agreements covering more than 320,000 employees that VA Secretary Doug Collins terminated last August under an executive order deeming the decades-long union representation there and at numerous other agencies is incompatible with national security.
Judge DuBose, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, found that the union is likely to succeed in its claim that the termination violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act and that it “seems substantially motivated by the Plaintiffs’ history and frequency of vocally opposing changes to labor policies.
In a motion filed to enforce that order, the AFGE says that while the VA has issued an internal memo deeming the agreements “reinstated” per the order, “Defendants are not, in fact, complying with the terms of the Master Agreement and, thus, they are not complying with the PI Order. Defendants continue to deny employees the benefits and protections they are due under the Master Agreement. Nor have Defendants communicated to Plaintiffs how they will comply with the PI Order in the future.”
It said that in that memo, the VA added that it is “reviewing the Order and has engaged with the Department of Justice for guidance” and that the order “raises complex questions” about implementing it. That preceded a motion asking the court for clarification about the length of the injunction and its impact on supplemental agreements.
The AFGE said that it will respond to that motion but that “all the while, Defendants have been defying the PI Order by openly refusing to follow the Master Agreement’s terms. As Plaintiffs show below, the VA continues to deny employees benefits due under the Master Agreement, to deny union officials official time to attend to union duties, to deny employees right during the disciplinary process, and to refuse to participate in the negotiated grievance and arbitration procedure.”
The AFGE argues that the order “is clear and unambiguous,” that the VA is capable of complying, and “The Court should not tolerate open defiance of its orders.”
Conversions to Schedule P/C Pending; Acknowledgement Form Draws Attention
Federal Employee Survey Shows Plummeting Views on Engagement, Leadership, Performance
OPM Takeovers of RIF, Suitability Appeals Diminish Legal Rights, Unions Say
Judge Orders VA to Reinstate Union Contract for 320,000 Workers
Retirement Application Processing Backlog Nearly Doubles in Four Months
See also,
Calculating Service Credit for Sick Leave At Retirement
FERS Supplement vs The 10% Pension Bonus
How Your FERS, Social Security and TSP Payments Get Taxed
Where Should I Put My TSP in Retirement
