American Federation of Government Employees Local 2305 et al v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 2305 and AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES NATIONAL VA
COUNCIL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS and DOUGLAS
COLLINS in his official capacity as
U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 25-cv-583-MRD-PAS
ORDER
The parties appeared before the Court this morning on the Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Enforce the Preliminary Injunction currently in place and on appeal at the First
Circuit. ECF No. 54. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants are in violation of
the Preliminary Injunction ordered by this Court on March 13, clarified on March 23,
and enforced on March 27, 2026, because the Defendants announced their intention
to consider the Master CBA re-terminated for all VA employees as of August 8, 2026.
Id. at 2. 	This motion is being considered and resolved on an expedited basis, at
Plaintiffs’ request. 	As such, the Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the
procedural history of this case and explains only as much as is necessary to provide
sufficient context and explanation of its resolution of the pending motion to enforce.
At the Court’s request, the parties submitted briefs addressing the threshold
question as to whether this Court is divested of jurisdiction to resolve the instant
motion given that the preliminary injunction order is currently on appeal at the First
Circuit. 	Neither party provided a definite answer to this question. 	This motion to
enforce seems to fall into a space just adjacent to the circumstances in which the First
Circuit has examined the district court’s jurisdiction to decide follow-up motions
related to preliminary injunctions when the merits of the injunction is on appeal.
See
Case 1:25-cv-00583-MRD-PAS Document 69 Filed 08/11/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Colon-Torres v. Negron-Fernandez, 997 F.3d 63, 7475 (1st Cir. 2021);
Contour
Design, Inc. v. Chance Mold Steel Co., 649 F.3d 31, 34 (1st Cir. 2011);
see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 62(d). The parties, however, are in agreement that, in this case and under
these 	circumstances, 	the 	Defendants’ 	appeal 	has 	not 	divested 	this 	Court 	of
jurisdiction to decide the question presented by this pending motion and a limited
remand from the Circuit Court is not required.
See ECF Nos. 58 at 11; 59 at 3-5. The
Court agrees.
After careful consideration of the parties’ arguments and exhibits attached to
their written memoranda, the Court notes and concludes as follows:
Per the orders entered on March 13, March 23, and March 27, 2026, the Master
CBA is in full force and effect for the remainder of the agreed-upon term provided
within the contract. 	This Court is mindful of the partial stay that the First Circuit
put in place after granting the Defendants’ Motion to stay the March 27 order in part.
See Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps. Loc. 2305 v. United States Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 177
F.4th 1, 21 (1st Cir. 2026). The Court, to the extent that it understands the panel’s
reasoning behind the grant of the partial stay, has no intention of running afoul of
their holding. 	In other words, the Court does not intend or interpret this Order as
requiring any specific performance by the parties.
There is no doubt that the
agreed-upon term provided within the Master CBA
is explained, in plain and unambiguous detail, in the Duration of Agreement
provision.
	See ECF Nos. 54-1 at 4; 58 at 8; 14-3 at 311. 	The Defendants’ assertion
that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the 30-day clock to begin negotiations and
that this purported failure is a lawful basis on which to terminate the agreement, is
not well-taken. The exhibits each party provided in support of their positions on this
motion are chock full of correspondence between the parties directly related to the
Defendants’ notice of intent to renegotiate the Master CBA (rather than allow it to
auto-renew as is on August 8).
See ECF Nos. 54-2; 58-2. The Duration of Agreement
provision instructs that, once a notice of intent to renegotiate is communicated,
“
negotiations shall begin no later than 30 days after . . .” (emphasis added). The word
negotiations is not qualified in any way.
The communications exchanged between the parties within the 30 days
immediately following the Defendants’ announcement of their intent to renegotiate
were laser-focused on negotiations. These communications included the scope of the
future CBA and the logistics for anticipated meetings to discuss when and how the
scope and substance of the future CBA would be negotiated. 	For the Defendants’
part, they combined an opening salvo to the future scope of a CBA with their notice
Case 1:25-cv-00583-MRD-PAS Document 69 Filed 08/11/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
of intent to renegotiate.
	See ECF No. 54-2 at 7. On the Plaintiffs’ side, their initial
responses countered the Defendants’ announcement that the renegotiated terms
would exclude non-exempted employees. 	They then engaged in a robust back-and-
forth regarding the logistics for setting ground rules of the renegotiation.
	See id. at
15, 18-19. Neither party allowed the negotiations to languish, despite the apparent
difficulty in reaching agreement as to the ground rules for the contract term-specific
negotiations.
With the conditions of the Duration of Agreement satisfied, the Defendants’
announcement of their intent to consider the Master CBA completely defunct as of
August 8, 2026 is in direct contravention of this Court’s order that the Master CBA
would remain in effect for the duration of the
agreed-upon term of the contract. The
parties are reminded that this Court’s preliminary injunction order, as clarified by
this Court is in full force and effect pending the Circuit Court’s resolution of the
merits of Defendants’ appeal.
The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce (ECF No. 54) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Melissa R. DuBose
United States District Judge
August 11, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00583-MRD-PAS Document 69 Filed 08/11/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>