The right of an agency to force a move and dismiss workers who refuse to move has been enshrined in case law since 1980. In the absence of a mobility agreement for the worker, the Agency shall demonstrate that he is carrying out the move for legitimate administrative reasons which would promote the efficiency of the service and provide sufficient information to the staff. If the agency is able to handle this burden and the employee cannot prove that it is a pretext, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) generally keeps its distance. If staff are covered by a mobility agreement, the distance is even easier for the agency to defend. So you can clearly see that your work is out of place. Should most employees be afraid that their jobs will be relocated? No no. While there is no big program like BRAC, the number of employees who have to move each year is very small. It`s not trivial for people whose jobs are affected, but most employees are never asked to take a geographic measurement they don`t want. Without going into the advantages of this or any other proposal, it is worth discussing the idea of targeted redistribution to the different suburban areas. Can the government force you to move or risk losing your job? Do they need congressional approval? Do you need a mobility contract? What options are available to employees if their workplace moves but they don`t want to leave? One question I have received on this subject concerns mobility agreements.
The right of an organization to force a move and dismiss employees who refuse to move has been enshrined in case law since 1980. If the worker is not covered by a mobility agreement, the Agency shall demonstrate the burden it imposes for legitimate management reasons that would promote the efficiency of the service and provide sufficient notice to workers. If the agency can bear this burden and the employee cannot prove that the reason is a pretext, the Commission for the Protection of Merit Systems (MSPB) will generally maintain the withdrawal. If the employee is covered by a mobility contract, the distance is even easier for the agency to defend. Some workers are required to sign mobility agreements as a condition of employment. If the employee refuses to move, he may be dismissed because he does not meet a condition of employment. The result is the illusion that only workers with mobility agreements can be condemned to move. Other staff members may also be appointed to relocate. The Merit Systems Protection Board ruled in gallegos v.
Department of the Air Force, 2014 MSPB 53 (July 17, 2014) that the complainant`s withdrawal for non-compliance with a condition of employment was appropriate if the complainant, although subject to a mobility requirement, refused a targeted redistribution. The complainant, Gallegos, was a GS-13 investigator. As a condition of her employment, Gallegos had to enter into a mobility agreement in which she acknowledged that any non-acceptance of a geographical transfer could make her conditional on separation from the federal service. In 2012, the agency informed Gallegos of an implemented transfer from Florida to Virginia. She refused the transfer and the agency withdrew it after a charge of “non-compliance with a condition of employment.” Workers considering accepting jobs subject to mobility agreements should be aware that any non-acceptance of geographical redistribution may result in the elimination of a remedy. The last issue is congressional approval. An incentive to move may be paid to an authorized person named General Schedule (GS), Senior Level (SL), Scientific or Professional (ST), Senior Executive Service (SES), Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration (FBI/DEA) SES, Executive Schedule (EX), Law Enforcement Officer or Dominant Position on Tariffs. The OPM may, at the written request of the head of an executive agency, approve other categories of coverage. The Merit Systems Protection Board ruled in gallegos v. Department of the Air Force, 2014 MSPB 53 (July 17, 2014) that the complainant`s withdrawal for non-compliance with a condition of employment was appropriate if the complainant, although subject to a mobility requirement, refused a targeted redistribution.
The Committee concluded that if it followed Gallegos` request, it would interfere with the agency`s management`s discretion to determine the requirements and conditions for positions within its staff, and that agency policy identifies legitimate reasons to meet the mobility needs – organizational effectiveness and career development of staff. An agency may derogate from the authorisation requirement on a case-by-case basis if the employee is a member of a group of employees subject to a mobility agreement or if a large unit is transferred to a new department. In the context of such a derogation, an agency shall indicate the group of staff registered, the conditions under which the derogation is approved and the period during which the derogation may be applied. Groups of workers must be eligible for resettlement incentives according to the same criteria as those that apply to individuals. (See 5 CFR 575.208(b)) Without going into the advantages of this or any other proposal, it is worth discussing the idea of targeted redistribution to the different suburban areas. Can the government force you to move or risk losing your job? Do they need congressional approval? Do you need a mobility contract? What options are available to employees if their workplace moves but they don`t want to leave? Before receiving an incentive to move, a staff member must sign a written agreement to enter into a certain period of employment with the Agency in the new department. The service contract must specify the duration, start and end dates of the period of service. the level of incentive; the method and timing of incentive payments; the conditions under which a contract is terminated by the Agency; any obligation of agency or temporary staff in the event of termination of a service contract (including the conditions under which the employee must repay an incentive or under which the Agency must make additional payments for partially completed services); and any other condition for maintaining and maintaining an incentive to move. One question I have received on this subject concerns mobility agreements. Some workers are required to sign mobility agreements as a condition of employment. If the employee refuses to move, he may be dismissed because he does not meet a condition of employment.
This leads to the misconception that only employees with mobility agreements can be ordered to move. Other employees may also be ordered to move. Without mentioning the advantages of this or any other proposal, the idea of targeted redistribution in different sectors of the shuttle is worth discussing. Can the government force you to move or risk losing your job? Do they need congressional approval? Do you need a mobility agreement? What are the options for employees if their workplace moves but they don`t want to participate? The right of an authority to force the move and dismiss workers who refuse to move has been enshrined in case law since 1980. In the absence of a mobility agreement for the worker, the Agency shall be responsible for demonstrating that it is doing so for legitimate administrative reasons that would promote the efficiency of the service and for providing staff with adequate information. If the agency is able to meet this burden and the employee cannot prove that the reason is a pretext, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) usually maintains the distance. This will allow you to clearly determine that your job is being moved to another location. Should most employees be concerned that their jobs may be relocated? No. If there is no big program like BRAC, the number of employees forced to move in a year is very low. .
