It’s come to our attention that Board management is spreading misinformation regarding the litigation between VA and AFGE concerning the preliminary injunction issued by Judge DuBose on March 13, 2026. We want to ensure you have accurate information and know where to access the relevant court dockets, at the Federal District Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
The reinstatement of the Master Collective Bargaining Agreement (Master Agreement) applies to all of VA, as the National VA Council was one of the named plaintiffs. Despite VA’s claims of confusion as to what it was ordered to do, and the requests for emergency stays, Judge DuBose has been crystal clear: the Master Agreement, including memoranda of understanding (MOU) must be reinstated in full. Judge DuBose did not issue a partial or prospective directive. She ordered the VA to reinstate the Master Agreement, as well as any MOUs that ***were*** in place. The use of “***were***” makes clear that the obligation is to restore the full *status quo ante*, meaning the conditions that existed before the unlawful termination, not some narrower version defined by management.
“While the First Circuit adjudicates the merits of the interlocutory appeal, this Court expects the parties’ full compliance, in both form and substance, with its prior orders.”
— Judge DuBose, April 6, 2026 Order
In an April 6, 2026, order denying the VA’s motion to stay enforcement, Judge DuBose issued that statement. This has not yet happened, and Board leadership continues to claim that the increased FY26 performance standards are unaffected, refusing to reinstate the MOU on attorney performance standards.
Board leadership justifies the continued defiance of a federal court order by claiming that the changes to attorney performance standards are “mission critical” so that more Veterans get more decisions. But the Board’s own FY 2027 budget proposal to Congress contradicts this justification, as it reduces staffing and proposes to issue fewer decisions. *See* pages 38–39. If the critical mission were actually to maximize the number of Veterans served by maximizing the number of decisions issued, leadership would not plan to issue 20,000 fewer decisions than were issued in FY25 under the previous performance standards or propose to reduce staffing at the Board by more than 100 employees.
As attorneys, we are bound to uphold the rule of law, even when we disagree with a ruling. The appropriate course is to comply while pursuing appellate review—something Board leadership has not done. Local 17 is not letting the Board’s attempts to delay compliance and deny your contractual protections go unanswered. This week, an arbitrator was selected to hear the grievance on the Board’s imposition of new attorney standards without bargaining.
**If you have been put on a performance improvement plan, received a letter of counselling, or experienced an adverse personnel action** (e.g., denial of a within-grade increase, career ladder promotion, or been demoted, removed, or threatened with such), please reach out to Local 17 as soon as possible:
– douglas.massey@afgelocal17.org
– calanitkedem@afgelocal17.org
– jr.cummings@afgelocal17.org
– mb.viccellio@afgelocal17.org
– marla.woodarek@afgelocal17.org
Please share this information with your colleagues. Access to the legal filings, court orders, and governing agreements is critical. Visit afgelocal17.org for updates and links to relevant materials.
For a complete list of relevant documents and court filings, visit our Important Links and Documents for Board Attorneys resource page.