Full Breakdown
Arbitrator Finds EPA Violated Federal Union Contract in 2025 Workforce Reductions
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Ruling
A third-party arbitrator, Felice Busto, issued a decision in early September ordering the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reinstate employees laid off during a 2025 reduction-in-force (RIF) and reorganization, to provide back-pay, to post notice of the contract violations, and to bargain in good faith with the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). The ruling concluded that the agency breached two provisions of its collective bargaining agreement and committed unfair labor practices by ignoring required notice and bargaining obligations.
Background & Context
Federal collective bargaining is governed by a statute over a century old that establishes a comprehensive scheme for labor relations in the federal sector. The arbitrator emphasized that executive orders cannot supersede this law. EPA had argued that its collective bargaining agreement was null after a 2025 presidential directive ending most agency-union contracts, but the arbitrator rejected that argument, reaffirming the statute’s primacy. Similar recent arbitrations have upheld union rights in the Agriculture Department and in EPA’s own return-to-office policy dispute.
Data & Statistics
- In summer 2025, at least 20 EPA employees received separation notices.
- At least four NTEU-represented employees were actually laid off during the RIF and reorganization.
- EPA’s April 2025 email to union leaders failed to include the specific notice details required by the contract.
Official Statements & Responses
NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald said the decision sends a clear message that the agency cannot disregard contractual obligations and that EPA employees deserved a voice in decisions that profoundly affected their jobs.
Verbatim Quotes
- “A comprehensive scheme of collective bargaining in the federal sector has been established by this more than 100 year old statute,” — Arbitrator Felice Busto
- “The evidence established that the agency did not comply with this provision in any way,” — Arbitrator Felice Busto
