Key Takeaways
- The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is suing the Veterans Affairs Department (VA), alleging violations of President Trump’s executive orders aimed at limiting federal employee collective bargaining rights.
- The lawsuit argues that VA Secretary Doug Collins selectively enforced the executive orders, arbitrarily terminating union contracts and exempting others based on "political activity" rather than national security concerns.
- The suit claims that the VA violated the terms of the executive orders by exempting specific unions instead of agency subdivisions, leading to inconsistencies and chaos within VA facilities.
- AFGE is also raising First and Fifth Amendment claims.
AFGE Sues VA Over Implementation of Trump’s Executive Orders
The American Federation of Government Employees’ National VA Council has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island, challenging the Veterans Affairs Department’s (VA) implementation of President Trump’s executive orders, which seek to curtail collective bargaining rights for a significant portion of the federal workforce. This lawsuit differs from previous challenges, which primarily focused on the legality of the executive orders themselves. This case concentrates on the actions of VA Secretary Doug Collins in implementing the directives, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the First and Fifth Amendments.
The lawsuit asserts that Secretary Collins’ decision to terminate AFGE’s union contract was "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion and contrary to law." It highlights a specific instance where Collins exempted several smaller unions from the executive orders while simultaneously terminating AFGE’s contract, even though members of both groups often work within the same VA subdivisions. AFGE contends that this selective enforcement was not based on national security concerns, as the executive orders purported, but rather on "political activity," such as the frequency of grievances filed against the VA by the different unions.
According to the lawsuit, the VA Secretary’s actions contradict the rationale behind the executive orders. The union points to the statement made by the VA’s spokesperson, suggesting the exemption of some unions was based on the low number of grievances filed, this highlights the fact that targeted for decertification under the executive orders was “political activity,” rather than national security, the union argued. AFGE argues that this demonstrates that the basis for targeting unions for decertification under the executive orders was not based on national security concerns, but was instead based on the different unions political activity.
The union further contends that Secretary Collins violated the terms of the executive orders themselves. The executive orders stipulate that exemptions should be based on the roles of government employees, with the intention of preserving the collective bargaining rights of agency police officers, security guards, and firefighters. However, the lawsuit claims that Collins exempted specific unions rather than the agency subdivisions where these employees work. This has resulted in a chaotic environment within VA facilities, where some employees within the same facility retain their collective bargaining rights while others do not.
This inconsistency has led to particularly problematic situations for VA police officers and firefighters, many of whom are members of AFGE. Because bargaining units are often organized by facility rather than by job, the loss of collective bargaining rights for some colleagues has weakened the overall bargaining power of the entire group. AFGE argues that this selective implementation of the executive orders has created a situation that is both unfair and disruptive to the functioning of the VA.
The legal challenge comes amidst ongoing legal battles over the executive orders. The VA briefly was halted from implemented the executive orders as part of a preliminary injunction secured by AFGE’s national office, though that decision itself was halted by a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The entire Ninth Circuit is in the midst of considering whether to overturn that decision and block the edict more broadly. This case adds another layer to the legal scrutiny of the executive orders, focusing on the specific actions of the VA in implementing them and alleging violations of federal law and constitutional rights.
