Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—D.R.I.: VA not entitled to terminate master collective bargaining agreement while injunction remained in force, (Aug 10, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

Negotiation-focused correspondence satisfied the contract’s 30-day requirement, defeating the agency’s asserted basis for treating the agreement as defunct.

A federal district court in Rhode Island has granted two federal employee unions’ motion to enforce a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to maintain its master collective bargaining agreement (Master CBA) for its agreed term. The parties’ communications about the scope and logistics of renegotiation satisfied the agreement’s 30-day negotiation requirement. Consequently, the VA’s announcement that it would consider the agreement entirely defunct beginning August 8, 2026, directly contravened the injunction (American Federation of Government Employees Local 2305 v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 25-cv-583-MRD-PAS (D.R.I. Aug. 7, 2026)).

Prior injunction. American Federation of Government Employees Local 2305 and the union’s National VA Council represent employees covered by the Master CBA with the VA. The district court entered a preliminary injunction on March 13, 2026, clarified it on March 23, and issued an enforcement order on March 27.

Those orders provided that the Master CBA would remain in full force and effect for the remainder of its agreed-upon term. The VA appealed the preliminary injunction ruling to the First Circuit, which subsequently stayed the March 27 order in part. The district court acknowledged the partial stay and emphasized that its latest order did not require either party to perform any specific contractual obligation.

The unions returned to the district court after the VA announced that it intended to consider the Master CBA re-terminated for all covered employees, effective August 8. They contended that the announcement violated the preliminary injunction. At their request, the court considered the enforcement motion on an expedited basis.

Authority to enforce. Because the preliminary injunction was on appeal, the court first directed the parties to address whether the appeal had divested it of jurisdiction to resolve the enforcement motion. Neither side offered a definitive answer based on existing First Circuit precedent, but both agreed that the district court retained jurisdiction and did not need a limited remand from the appellate court.

The court observed that the motion fell just outside the circumstances in which the First Circuit previously considered a district court’s authority to act on follow-up motions while an injunction was on appeal. In Colon-Torres v. Negron-Fernandez, 997 F.3d 63, 74-75 (1st Cir. 2021), the appellate court examined the jurisdictional limits governing post-appeal district court proceedings involving injunctive relief.

Similarly, Contour Design, Inc. v. Chance Mold Steel Co., 649 F.3d 31, 34 (1st Cir. 2011), recognized that an interlocutory appeal ordinarily transfers jurisdiction over the matters involved in the appeal, while allowing a district court to address issues not interfering with appellate jurisdiction. Consistent with those principles and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), the district court agreed that it could decide the enforcement motion.

Thirty-day requirement. The dispute centered on the Master CBA’s Duration of Agreement provision. That provision set out the agreed term in what the court described as “plain and unambiguous detail.” It also provided that, after either side communicated notice of its intent to renegotiate, negotiations had to begin within 30 days.

The VA maintained that the unions failed to comply with that deadline. According to the agency, the purported failure allowed it to terminate the agreement rather than permit its automatic renewal on August 8.

The court rejected that interpretation. The exhibits accompanying the parties’ submissions contained extensive correspondence directly concerning the VA’s notice of intent to renegotiate. The court stressed that the provision merely required negotiations to begin within 30 days and did not qualify what those negotiations had to address or require the parties to reach any particular stage during that period.

Negotiations. Communications exchanged during the relevant 30-day period were “laser-focused on negotiations,” the court found. They addressed the proposed scope of the successor agreement and the logistics for meetings concerning how and when the parties would negotiate its scope and substantive terms.

The VA combined its notice of intent to renegotiate with an opening position about the future agreement’s scope. The unions responded by challenging the agency’s proposal to exclude nonexempted employees from the renegotiated terms. The parties then continued discussions on the ground rules governing the negotiations.

Their difficulty in reaching agreement on those ground rules did not mean that negotiations had not begun. Neither side allowed the process to languish, and their exchanges concerned matters directly related to negotiating the future agreement. The court therefore found that the parties satisfied the conditions specified in the Duration of Agreement provision.

Injunction enforced. Because negotiations began within the contractual period, the VA lacked the asserted basis for treating the Master CBA as terminated. Its announcement that the agreement would become completely defunct on August 8 was in “direct contravention” of the court’s prior order requiring the agreement to remain effective throughout its agreed term.

Thus, granting the unions’ motion to enforce, the court reminded both sides that the preliminary injunction, as clarified by the district court and partially stayed by the First Circuit, remained in force pending the appellate court’s resolution of the VA’s appeal.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-00583-MRD-PAS.

Judge: DuBose, M.

Attorneys: Alexandra Wheeler (Keker, Van Nest & Peters) for American Federation of Government Employees Local 2305 and American Federation of Government Employees National VA Council. Andrea Lena Hyatt, Office of the Attorney General, for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Douglas Collins.

Cases: Bargaining Labor RemediesDamages Procedure PublicEmployees UnionsMembers RhodeIslandNews