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 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. Workers wishing to take positions subject to mobility agreements should be fully aware that any geographical non-reallocation could lead to expulsion without recourse. 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. 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”.
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. Without evidence of bad faith or patent impartiality, the Chamber differs from the Agency`s requirements that must be met in order for a person to be appointed to or retain a specific position.