Complainant Gallegos was a forensic police officer with GS-13. As a condition of its commitment, Gallegos was required to execute a mobility agreement in which it recognized that any non-acceptance of a geographic reallocation could subordinate a separation from the federal service. In 2012, Gallegos reported on a targeted redistribution from Florida to Virginia. She objected to the reassignment and the Agency removed it by accusing it of « not fulfilling a condition of employment ». If clearly, you can find your work moved to another location. Should most workers be afraid of having their jobs relocated? No no. If there is no large program like BRAC, the number of employees who have to move in a year is very low. This is not insignificant for people whose jobs are affected, but most workers will never be invited to take a geographic step that they do not want. The Merit Systems Protection Board in Gallegos v.

Department of the Air Force, 2014 MSPB 53 (July 17, 2014), that the complainant`s expulsion for non-compliance with a condition of employment is appropriate if the complainant, despite being subject to a mobility application, refused a targeted reassignment. The final issue is congressional approval. Does an agency need to receive the blessing of Congress to relocate its staff? It depends on the extent of the movement. When an agency wants to relocate a handful of employees, this can often be done entirely within the framework of agency funds and operating authorities. If the numbers get to the point where the Agency needs big dollars to pay for relocations, or relocates dozens or hundreds of jobs, there may be congressional notification requirements, reprogramming requests or fresh money. In these cases, Congress will have a say and questions will address the reasons for a moving agency, how it intends to deal with personnel issues, and how they reduce the risk to the mission, which can be caused by large numbers of workers who refuse to move. The Board of Directors concluded by stating that if it accepted Gallegos` assertion, it would intrude on the Agency`s management`s decision to determine the requirements and conditions of the position within its staff, and that the Agency`s policy would establish legitimate reasons for managing the mobility requirement – organizational efficiency and career development of staff. One question I asked about this is about 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. This leads to the mistaken belief that only workers with mobility contracts can be asked to relocate. Other staff may also be asked to relocate.

Without mentioning the benefits of this proposal or any other, the idea of targeted redistribution in different sectors of the shuttle is worth discussing. Can the government force you to relocate or risk losing your job? Do they need congressional approval? Do you have to have a mobility agreement? What are the opportunities for employees when their jobs move, but they don`t want to participate? An agency`s right to force the move and dismiss workers who refuse to move has been enshrined in jurisprudence since 1980. If the worker is not covered by a mobility agreement, the Agency is responsible for proving that it is doing so for legitimate management reasons that would promote the efficiency of the service and to adequately inform staff. If the Agency is able to fulfill this burden and the employee is unable to prove that reason is a pretext, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) generally maintains the distance.