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. Without going into the merits of this or any other proposal, the idea of targeted redistributions in different suburban areas should be discussed. Can the government force you to move or risk losing your job? Do they have to seek congressional approval? Do you need a mobility contract? What options do employees have if their workplace moves but they don`t want to follow? In Gallegos v. Department of the Air Force, 2014 MSPB 53 (July 17, 2014), the Merit Systems Protection Commission stated that the complainant`s dismissal for non-compliance with a condition of employment was appropriate if the complainant, although subject to a mobility requirement, refused an orderly reassignment. 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. Before applying a mobility clause, it is strongly advised to analyse the possible impact of the change on remuneration. Indeed, it is impossible to unilaterally deduct the remuneration of an employee, which could be the case in the event of a transfer of an employee who could benefit from a variable remuneration (commission on turnover in his geographical sector). For this reason, it is necessary to obtain the consent of the employee if the transfer results in a reduction in the contractual remuneration. 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. 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. 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. 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 held gallegos v. Department of the Air Force, 2014 MSPB 53 (17. July 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 move. The allegation of non-compliance with a condition of employment contains two elements that the Agency had to prove: (1) the requirement in question is a condition of employment; and (2) the applicant did not fulfil that condition. In the absence of evidence of bad faith or manifest injustice, the House meets the agency`s requirements that must be met in order for a person to qualify or retain their appointment to a particular position. The Board noted that the mobility requirement was a condition of employment, as all these positions were covered by the mobility requirement and Gallegos regularly signed mobility agreements with its colleagues. The mobility clause allows the employer to move the employee`s workplace to another location, an originally defined geographic area, without the employee`s consent (this consent was given by the employee at the time the contract was signed). The Court of Cassation has not yet precisely defined the concept of geographical area – which therefore remains rather vague – although it specifies that “a change of workplace must be assessed objectively”.
Therefore, the location of the two workplaces (the first and the new) must be taken into account in order to determine whether they are in the same geographical area, the residence of the employees and the impact that the change of workplace will have on the employee`s private life are not taken into account. The allegation of non-compliance with a condition of employment contains two elements that the Agency had to prove: (1) the requirement in question is a condition of employment; and (2) the Appellant did not meet this condition. In the absence of evidence of bad faith or patent dishonesty, the Commission complies with the Agency`s requirements, which must be met in order for a person to qualify or be retained for a particular position. The Council noted that the mobility requirement was a condition of employment since all these elements were subject to the mobility requirement and Gallegos regularly signed mobility agreements with its colleagues. Involuntary separation means a separation initiated by an organization against the will of the employee and without the employee`s consent for reasons other than inefficiency, including separation resulting from the expiry of a temporary appointment made within 3 calendar days of the termination of an eligible date. In addition, if an employee is separated because they refuse to accept reassignment outside their suburban area, the separation is “involuntary” if the employee`s job description or other written agreement does not provide for such reassignment. However, the separation of an employee is not “involuntary” if, after the addition of such a written mobility agreement, the employee accepts a new orientation outside the commuting area, but subsequently rejects another such reclassification. However, this notion of geographical sectors is not taken into account when mobility is inherent in the employee`s professional functions (construction manager, consultant, etc.) and the change is in fact a temporary assignment or an occasional move. It has been decided that a two-month contract should be considered a temporary transition, but it is not easy to determine how long an assignment can be considered temporary. The complainant, Gallegos, was a GS-13 investigator. As a condition of her employment, Gallegos had to conclude a mobility agreement in which she admitted that any non-acceptance of a geographical reassignment could lead to her separation from the federal service […].
