SALEM, OR – March 21, 2025 — A Marion County Circuit Judge has temporarily blocked an executive order issued by Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, which mandated that state agencies use union labor for most state construction projects. The ruling comes in response to a request from contractor groups, who argued that the governor’s executive order oversteps her authority.

Temporary Injunction on Governor’s Order

On March 21, 2025, Judge Thomas M. Hart issued a temporary injunction against Kotek’s December executive order. The order, which was set to take effect on March 31, 2025, required state agencies to enter into project labor agreements (PLAs) with labor unions for the majority of state-funded construction projects.

The Associated General Contractors (AGC) of America, Oregon-Columbia chapter, along with several of its member firms, filed a motion earlier this month requesting that Judge Hart block the order until the court could review the case. The AGC argued that only the Oregon Legislature has the authority to make laws, not the governor, and therefore, Kotek’s executive order is unconstitutional.

Governor’s Defense of Executive Authority

Attorneys from the Oregon Department of Justice, representing Governor Kotek, argued that the executive order did not constitute a law or an attempt at legislation. They stated that the order was an expression of the governor’s role as chief executive and should not be interpreted as an overreach of authority.

“The Court should not read the executive order to be a proclamation of law or an attempt at legislation,” DOJ attorneys wrote in their March 17 motion. “Much like when interpreting a statute or rule, the court should assume that the governor intended Executive Order 24-31 to be a constitutional expression of her role as the chief executive and not an attempt to usurp the authority of the legislative branch.”

However, Judge Hart rejected this argument, agreeing with the contractor groups that the governor’s order could unfairly alter Oregon’s system of competitive bidding, which is designed to ensure open and fair competition.

Contractors’ Reactions to the Ruling

Mike Salsgiver, the CEO of the AGC’s Oregon-Columbia chapter, expressed strong support for the judge’s decision, calling it a win for local contractors and businesses.

“The judge’s ruling reinforces what our local contractors have been saying since the order was issued last December,” Salsgiver said. “The governor lacks the authority to unilaterally alter Oregon’s system of competitive bidding and open and fair competition.”

Salsgiver emphasized that the governor’s executive order would have restricted competition by requiring state construction contracts to be awarded only to companies that agree to use union labor, which he argued would disadvantage non-union contractors and increase project costs.

Next Steps and Case Continuation

With the temporary injunction in place, the March 31 deadline for state agencies to implement the governor’s order is now suspended until Judge Hart makes a final decision on the case. The legal battle is expected to continue as the court evaluates whether Kotek's executive order exceeds the governor’s constitutional powers.

The AGC and its allies will continue to argue that only the Legislature has the constitutional authority to make laws governing the state’s procurement and contracting processes.

The Broader Debate Over Public Projects and Union Labor

The dispute over union labor requirements on state construction projects reflects a broader debate on the role of unions in public contracts and the balance of power between the governor and the Legislature. Proponents of project labor agreements argue that they help ensure fair wages, good working conditions, and timely project completion, while opponents argue that they can limit competition and drive up costs.

For now, the legal outcome of this case will have significant implications for how state construction projects are managed in Oregon in the future. Governor Kotek’s executive order would have marked a shift in state policy, as Oregon would have become one of the few states to require union labor for most public construction projects.

The executive order came amid a push by unions to increase their presence in the public sector. Unions have long advocated for project labor agreements, claiming that they provide stability for workers, ensure higher standards on public construction projects, and help maintain a skilled workforce.

However, the ruling in favor of contractors may set a precedent for limiting the scope of such agreements. State lawmakers are now likely to become more involved in shaping the future of construction labor policies in Oregon, with both sides preparing for a possible legislative battle to define the rules for union labor on public projects.

As the case moves forward, it will continue to reflect the tensions between different factions involved in Oregon’s construction industry.

Originally reported by Nigel Jaquiss in Bend Source.