Trump Cancels Most Federal Collective Bargaining Agreements

President Donald Trump signed an executive order effectively ending federal collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) across a wide range of government agencies on March 27. He used the authority granted under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), which allows the president to end CBAs in the interest of national security. Though the action itself is not unprecedented, its reach is significant. 

The president designated the work of 18 federal agencies as pertaining to national security, including the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the General Services Administration, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. As a result, the order affects “three-quarters of the workers who currently have a collective bargaining agreement, which is about two-thirds of all federal workers,” said Mark Scudder, attorney at Barnes & Thornburg in Fort Wayne, Ind. According to Trump, all the impacted workers play some role in national security, making their bargaining agreements eligible for cancellation under the CSRA. 

In the past, presidents have used their authority to cancel bargaining agreements, Scudder noted. But he was “not familiar with anything that would have affected the same numbers of people” as this order. 

Debate Over Parameters  

In exercising his authority under the CSRA, Trump aims to remove the red tape that unions represent. According to Scudder, the president views CBAs as “too restrictive.” In Trump’s own words, federal unions are “hostile” and “obstruct agency management.” Certain of these “have declared war” against his agenda, the president said. Unions were quick to criticize the order.

The heart of the dispute is the issue of authority. “I don’t think anybody denies that [Trump] has that authority; I think it’s a question of how broad it is,” Scudder said.

It boils down to a question of federal law. Scudder foresees two potential bases for the unions’ legal challenges. The first argument might be that the executive order is acceptable for some agencies and not others, focusing on the parameters of national security. The unions may argue that the administration has interpreted national security too broadly, and the president does not have the authority to issue so expansive an order. “The unions will argue that [the interpretation] should be very narrow, and the president will argue that [it] should be [broader],” Scudder explained. “You could see a mixed result where [a judge] upholds the order for some agencies but [strikes] it down with others,” Scudder said. 

It is also possible the unions may argue that their First Amendment rights have been violated, Scudder said. They may claim there was an infringement of the right to freedom of association.  

Impact of the Order

With at least one challenge already filed, there will likely be “some effort to get an injunction in place,” Scudder said. At the moment, however, the president’s order stands. As a result, the workers affected will “just be treated as if they’re not unionized,” Scudder added. 

The executive order will have a direct impact on agency staffing. Layoffs using the reduction in force defense are already underway at many federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and others. Typically, in a reduction in force, the unions will want to have a say, Scudder said. Trump’s order has taken the union out of the equation, allowing the president — and executive agencies — to eliminate positions without pushback. 

A Change in Direction 

Scudder noted that the executive order represents a significant change in policy for the listed agencies. “The administration has made a statement with what direction they’re going,” he said, and federal employers are bound to follow the directives that they are given. “The president holds the cards,” he said.

So, “unless a court jumps in and does something, I would anticipate that [agencies] would move forward” as if employees’ collective bargaining agreements are null and void, Scudder said. HR pros in the federal sector should speak with their counsel for guidance on how to communicate the change, but in the end, any collective agreements are not currently enforceable. HR’s position on CBAs in affected agencies would likely be that they aren’t a factor in any staffing changes, according to Scudder. 

Rachel Zheliabovskii is a specialist, B2C content, at SHRM.