The right of an agency to impose a move and dismiss employees who refuse to move has been enshrined in case law since 1980. If the employee is not covered by a mobility agreement, the Agency must prove that he is making the move for legitimate management reasons that would promote the efficiency of the service and sufficiently inform staff. If the Agency is able to cope with this burden and the employee is unable to prove that it is a pretext, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) generally maintains the distance. If staff are covered by a mobility agreement, the distance is even easier for the Agency to defend. Thus, 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 major program like BRAC, the number of employees forced to move each year is very low. It`s not trivial for people whose jobs are affected, but most employees are never asked to take a geographic step they don`t want. Without addressing the benefits of this or any other proposal, the idea of targeted redistribution to different commuter areas is worth discussing. Can the government force you to relocate or risk losing your job? Do they need congressional approval? Do you need to have a mobility contract? What are the options available to employees if their workplace moves, but they don`t want to go? One question I have received on this subject concerns mobility agreements.
Some workers must sign mobility agreements as a condition of employment. If the worker refuses to move, he or she may be dismissed because he or she does not meet a condition of employment. The result is the illusion that only employees with mobility agreements can be condemned to move. Other staff members may also be appointed to relocate. The Merit Systems Protection Board held 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 establish a mobility agreement in which she acknowledged that any non-acceptance of a geographical transfer could condition her 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 following an indictment for “non-compliance with a condition of employment”. Workers considering accepting positions subject to mobility agreements should be aware that any non-acceptance of geographical redistribution may result in distance without recourse. The last issue is congressional approval.
Does an agency need to receive the blessing of Congress to relocate employees? It depends on the size of the trains. When an agency wishes to relocate a handful of employees, this can often be done entirely within the framework of the Agency`s and operational authorities` endowments. If the numbers get to the point where the agency needs big dollars to pay for the move, or moves dozens or hundreds or more of jobs, there may be requests for congressional notification, requests for reprogramming, or fresh money. In these cases, Congress will have a say and its questions will cover the reasons for a moving agency, how it intends to handle personnel issues, and how it will reduce the risk to the mission, which can be caused by a large number of employees who refuse to move. . . .