What Is A Mobility Agreement
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. 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. 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. If staff are covered by a mobility agreement, it is even easier to defend the Agency`s move. Gallegos does not deny that it refused to meet the mobility requirement. On the contrary, it has raised a number of defences, including the argument that, in addition to the mobility agreements it has signed, the Agency has provided no evidence that the underlying targeted reallocation promotes the efficiency of the service. In this context, Mr.
Gallegos argued that, in a case where it is a mobility agreement, the Agency must show the same thing as if there was no mobility agreement. The board rejected the applicant`s arguments and distinguished her case from Miller/. Interior, 119 MSPR 438 (2013). In this case, the board found that an agency must demonstrate, with the aid of overwhelming evidence, that a geographical reallocation of a worker who is not subject to a mobility agreement has been duly ordered because, in the interest of promoting the efficiency of the service, management can maintain a distance resulting from the non-acceptance of a directed reallocation. 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? The allegation of non-compliance with a condition of employment has two elements that the Agency has had to demonstrate: (1) The requirement at issue is a condition of employment; and (2) the applicant did not meet this condition.