The Environmental Protection Agency violated its collective bargaining agreement and committed unfair labor practices when it implemented reduction-in-force and reorganization plans last year, a third-party arbitrator has ruled.

A Sept. 2 decision from Arbitrator Felice Busto orders EPA to reinstate employees who were laid off last year and make them whole, as well as post a notice of the contract violations and bargain in good faith with the National Treasury Employees Union.

“This decision sends a clear message: EPA cannot disregard its contractual obligations and the rights of its employees simply because it wants to reorganize the agency,” NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald said in a statement. “EPA employees deserved a voice in decisions that profoundly affected their jobs and careers.”

But the arbitrator’s orders are not a done deal: EPA now has 30 days to decide whether it will appeal the decision to the Federal Labor Relations Authority — a step many agencies have recently taken when faced with arbitrator rulings against them.

Asked to comment on the agency’s next steps, an agency spokesperson told Federal News Network, “EPA is not bound by the arbitrator’s decision.”

In summer 2025, at least 20 EPA employees received separation notices, and at least four employees represented by NTEU were laid off during the RIF and reorganization efforts, the arbitration document shows. NTEU challenged the agency’s RIF and reorganization plans, arguing that EPA pursued the workforce changes without providing advance notice or an opportunity to bargain, in violation of multiple provisions of its collective bargaining agreement.

NTEU contended in its grievance that its contract with EPA requires the agency to provide advance notice before pursuing any RIFs. The notice must include the reason, location and planned date of the RIF action, as well as which and how many positions will be affected. The agreement also requires notice and an opportunity to bargain before any reorganizations involving transfers of functions take place.

According to the arbitration document, EPA argued that its collective bargaining agreement was no longer in effect following 2025 orders from President Donald Trump for most agencies to terminate their union contracts. Because the agreement was canceled in August 2025, EPA asserted that the grievance and arbitration process was therefore nullified.

In her Sept. 2 decision, Busto wrote that EPA’s argument “must be rejected.”

“A comprehensive scheme of collective bargaining in the federal sector has been established by this more than 100 year old statute,” Busto said. “Executive orders are subordinate to statutes and cannot amend or replace a law passed by Congress.”

Busto ruled in favor of the union, affirming that EPA violated two provisions of its contract. Though the agency sent an email in April 2025 generally notifying union leaders of the RIF, that message didn’t contain the information required under the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator wrote.

“The evidence established that the agency did not comply with this provision in any way,” Busto said. “The agency persisted in implementing the RIF and the reorganization without any effort to negotiate.”

In addition to finding multiple contract violations, the arbitrator found that EPA committed unfair labor practices by failing to bargain with the union and “blatantly ignoring the notice and briefing requirements” outlined in the collective bargaining agreement.

Many recent arbitration rulings have sided with federal unions over allegations that agencies have been violating collective bargaining agreements, often when dealing with return-to-office requirements. Most recently, an independent arbitrator found that the Agriculture Department violated one of its union agreements and committed unfair labor practices by broadly ending telework for employees.

In December 2025, another third-party arbitration decision found that EPA violated its agreement with the American Federation of Government Employees by failing to negotiate over its return-to-office policy. But due to the AFGE contract being terminated, the arbitrator’s ruling was never enforced.

Credit to the source