The AFL-CIO, accusing President Reagan of an attempt at "ideological court-packing," urged the Senate yesterday to reject Reagan's nomination of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court.

In a four-page statement, the executive council of the labor federation said Bork's record and career "make it plain that he is a man moved not by deference to the democratic process, nor by allegiance to any recognized theory of jurisprudence, but by an overriding commitment to the interests of the wealthy and powerful in our society.

"His agenda is the agenda of the right wing and he has given a lifetime of zeal to publicizing that agenda," the statement continued. "That is the stuff from which his nomination was made and that is what requires the Senate to refuse its advice and consent."

The AFL-CIO's position was expected, but it added a potentially powerful lobbying force to the coalition of liberal organizations opposing the Bork nomination. Rex Hardesty, a federation spokesman, said planning would begin immediately for a "no-holds-barred battle" by organized labor against Bork.

One union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, has already contributed $40,000 to the anti-Bork effort, Hardesty noted.

The AFL-CIO issued critical studies of the work of two earlier Reagan Supreme Court nominees -- those of Antonin Scalia to be associate justice and William H. Rehnquist to be chief justice -- but it did not actively campaign against either man. The last time the labor federation actively opposed a Supreme Court nomination was in 1969 and 1970, as part of the coalition that defeated President Nixon's nominations of Clement Haynesworth and G. Harrold Carswell to the high court.

Ralph G. Neas, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights that is coordinating the anti-Bork campaign, said the AFL-CIO decision was "enormously consequential."

He said organized labor was "especially effective on the grass-roots level. We expect it to make a critical difference, as it did in opposing Haynesworth and Carswell."

Patrick McGuigan, an official of Coalitions for America, a conservative lobbying group that supports the Bork nomination, said the AFL-CIO's opposition was "very discouraging."

"Once again, the leadership at the highest level of the AFL-CIO has shown it is increasingly out of touch with rank-and-file workers," McGuigan said. He said "average Americans" want judges who "interpret the law, not make it up," while the AFL-CIO was "choosing the side that says we want judges who make it up as they go along."

The 35-member AFL-CIO executive council issued its statement on Bork on the opening day of its annual summer meeting here.

The union leaders said that "so far as we have been able to ascertain, {Bork} has never shown the least concern for working people, minorities, the poor or for individuals seeking the protection of the law to vindicate their political and civil rights. The causes that have engaged him are those of businessmen, of property owners and of the executive branch of government."

The statement accused him of "seeking to drain the Bill of Rights of most of its force" and of being "an extreme judicial activist" in "attempting to liberate big business from most of the limits on corporate power stated in the antitrust laws."

The executive council statement was accompanied by a 32-page memorandum by Laurence Gold, the AFL-CIO's general counsel, and Walter A. Kamiat, a Washington lawyer, concluding that Bork "does not possess {the} prime requisites for good judging.

"None of his work shows any concern for the nuance of judicial decision-making or for the legitimate rights and interests of any but a narrow segment of society," the memorandum said.

The AFL-CIO also released a compilation of positions Bork has taken on the appeals court, which it said included five of seven labor cases in which he voted against unions or employes.