{"id":14021,"date":"2026-07-23T16:57:13","date_gmt":"2026-07-23T16:57:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawahsolutions.com\/range\/unions-ask-for-injunction-restoring-collective-bargaining-at-defense\/"},"modified":"2026-07-23T16:57:14","modified_gmt":"2026-07-23T16:57:14","slug":"unions-ask-for-injunction-restoring-collective-bargaining-at-defense","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawahsolutions.com\/range\/unions-ask-for-injunction-restoring-collective-bargaining-at-defense\/","title":{"rendered":"Unions ask for injunction restoring collective bargaining at Defense"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

A pair of federal employee unions on Monday urged a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction restoring their collective bargaining agreements with the Defense Department, arguing that Secretary Pete Hegseth failed to follow the Trump administration\u2019s own process for implementing two executive orders banning organized labor at most federal agencies.<\/p>\n

Earlier this month, the American Federation of Government Employees and National Federation of Federal Employees sued the Pentagon over the April termination of their collective bargaining agreements, a move that the Defense Department said was aimed at complying with President Trump\u2019s March 2025 executive order barring collective bargaining for two-thirds of the federal workforce on national security grounds.<\/p>\n

The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, focuses not on the legality of Trump\u2019s edict, but rather whether Hegseth fulfilled his obligation to conduct \u201creasoned decision-making\u201d under the Administrative Procedure Act when he ordered CBAs be terminated with just 24 hours\u2019 notice.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Hegseth memorandum did not point to any facts showing that any of plaintiffs\u2019 CBAs, much less all of them, were inconsistent with national security,\u201d the unions wrote. \u201cDOD agencies had voluntarily agreed to these CBAs. Nor did the Hegseth memorandum consider the obvious alternatives to immediate mass termination of all CBAs, such as refraining from terminating CBAs until litigation about [the executive order] runs its course, allowing CBAs to expire pursuant to their own terms, or identifying only those specific parts of CBAs that the secretary determined to be inconsistent with national security . . . The Hegseth memorandum was the opposite of the reasoned decision-making that the APA requires before final agency action.\u201d<\/p>\n

The unions said that the Defense Department did not even follow a template for terminating union contracts issued by the Office of Personnel Management in February, seemingly designed to address the APA\u2019s requirements for agencies to explain policy changes and consider the reliance interests of stakeholders. Instead, Hegseth wrote simply that the actions were \u201crequired\u201d in order to comply with Trump\u2019s order.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe OPM termination template reinforces that CBA terminations are discretionary and must comply with the APA\u2019s requirements for reasoned decision-making,\u201d the unions wrote. \u201cThe OPM template indicates that agencies should specify that, after the issuance of the EO, the agency \u2018considered whether to terminate any CBA, in whole or part, as it pertains to those bargaining unit employees who fall within the EO\u2019s scope.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Since the contracts\u2019 termination in April, management officials have told union members that their union \u201cdoes not exist any longer,\u201d and some employees have been required to sign documents attesting that they lack union representation. Employees in disciplinary proceedings are denied access to union representation, managers are unilaterally changing employees\u2019 work schedules with little notice, and the labor groups\u2019 membership is on the decline.<\/p>\n

\u201cPlaintiffs face an existential threat because workers are afraid to engage in any union activity or are confused about their right to do so,\u201d they wrote. \u201cDOD is telling plaintiffs\u2019 members and prospective members that they are ineligible to join unions and that their unions \u2018do not exist.\u2019 Plaintiffs cannot successfully retain or recruit members under such circumstances, and union membership is declining. These harms are irreparable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since its initial filing earlier this month, AFGE and NFFE\u2019s case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a jurist who was nominated to the federal bench by both presidents Obama and Trump.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n