The Federal Employee Survival Blog

Your go-to resource for navigating job uncertainty, protecting your rights, and staying ahead of federal workplace changes. Get the latest insights on policy shifts, legal updates, discipline defense, EEO protections, and career-saving strategies—so you’re always prepared, never blindsided.

📌 Stay informed. Stay protected. Stay in control.

Can an Arbitrator Reject a Presidential Executive Order?

arbitration executive orders federal employment mspb appeals union rights Jan 08, 2026

Federal employees are increasingly being told a stark message: the President signed an executive order, so your bargaining rights are gone. When that message comes from agency leadership—delivered with confidence and finality—it can feel paralyzing, especially for employees already under stress. But a recent arbitration decision out of Scott Air Force Base shows why that certainty is legally misplaced.

The case raised a deceptively simple question: can an arbitrator still hear a grievance when an executive order claims to limit union and arbitration rights? The agency argued no. Its position was that the executive order alone stripped the arbitrator of authority, requiring dismissal without ever examining the underlying dispute.

The arbitrator rejected that argument—and did so on disciplined legal grounds, not ideology.

The Hierarchy of Law Still Matters

Federal employment rights do not exist at the pleasure of the President. Collective bargaining, grievance procedures, and arbitration arise from statute—specifically, federal labor laws enacted by Congress. Agencies are authorized by those statutes to enter collective bargaining agreements, and those agreements carry legal force.

An executive order can shape how agencies operate within the law. What it cannot do, by itself, is repeal a statute or nullify an existing contract. That power belongs to Congress and, ultimately, the courts.

The arbitrator focused squarely on that hierarchy. Until a court rules that a statute or negotiated agreement is invalid, arbitrators are not free to pretend those legal structures have disappeared. An agency cannot declare itself immune from review simply by invoking presidential authority.

What the Decision Did—and Did Not—Say

This ruling did not permanently invalidate the executive order. It did not guarantee a union victory on the merits. And it did not suggest arbitrators can ignore binding court decisions if one eventually says otherwise.

What it did say is narrower and more important: grievance and arbitration rights do not evaporate automatically. Legal authority must be withdrawn through lawful processes, not managerial declarations.

For federal employees, that distinction is critical. It means procedural protections remain in place unless and until a court definitively says they do not.

Why Grievance Rights Exist in the First Place

Federal employees operate in a system unlike the private sector. Pay is set by statute. Supervisors are assigned, not chosen. Mobility is limited. Walking away is rarely a realistic option. In that environment, grievance procedures and collective representation serve as stabilizing mechanisms.

They provide a lawful channel to challenge retaliation, arbitrary discipline, and procedural abuse. When those channels are removed, the problems do not vanish. They become hidden. Fear replaces process. Silence replaces accountability.

That outcome harms employees, agencies, and the public alike.

The Bigger Question Going Forward

This arbitration decision highlights questions every federal employee should consider. If Congress created federal labor rights, who has the authority to take them away? What happens to workplace accountability when grievance systems are sidelined? And based on lived experience, have unions protected employees, failed them—or both?

Understanding these issues is not about politics. It is about knowing where legal authority actually comes from, and where it does not.

Legal Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While a federal employment attorney authored this post, it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique, and legal outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE BRIEFING

Your Trusted Guide in Uncertain Times

Stay informed, stay protected. The Federal Employee Briefing delivers expert insights on workforce policies, legal battles, RTO mandates, and union updates—so you’re never caught off guard. With job security, telework, and agency shifts constantly evolving, we provide clear, concise analysis on what’s happening, why it matters, and what you can do next.

📩 Get the latest updates straight to your inbox—because your career depends on it.

You're safe with me. I'll never spam you or sell your contact info.