The Vermont Supreme Court has cleared the way for the executive branch to require thousands of state employees to report to physical offices at least three days per week, ruling that the governor acted within the broad contractual discretion reserved under the state’s existing telework policy.
In a unanimous decision written by Justice Waples, the state high court reversed a Vermont Labor Relations Board ruling that had ordered the state to rescind its return-to-office directive and reimburse affected workers. The decision in Vermont State Employees’ Association v. State of Vermont (Docket No. 26-AP-112), issued during the court’s June Term 2026, settles a high-stakes labor conflict between the administration and the union representing executive branch staff. Chief Justice Reiber and Justices Eaton, Nolan and Drescher joined in the opinion.
The dispute centers on the administration’s announcement in August 2025 of a new “Hybrid Work Standard.” Designed to foster collaboration and camaraderie across state agencies, the standard rescinded existing remote work agreements as of December 1, 2025, and established a mandatory baseline of three in-person workdays per week. To work remotely more than two days a week, employees were required to submit formal exception requests demonstrating “compelling reasons.”
The Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA), which represents three bargaining units in the executive branch, demanded that the state halt implementation and engage in formal bargaining. When the state refused, asserting that it had already fulfilled its bargaining obligations when negotiating the underlying telework agreement in 2012, VSEA filed an unfair labor practice charge under 3 V.S.A. § 961.
In April 2026, the Labor Relations Board sided with the union. The board determined that the governor lacked authority under the 2012 policy to rescind telework agreements en masse, reasoning that the policy explicitly delegated discretion over remote work to individual departmental “appointing authorities”—such as commissioners and agency secretaries—based on their specific operational needs. The board also held that the mandatory three-day office requirement and the exception process imposed entirely new terms of employment without prior negotiation.
The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, holding that the board overstepped its role by constraining the state’s legitimate management prerogative. The justices pointed out that the negotiated 2012 policy contains no guarantee of remote work and explicitly emphasizes the employer’s ultimate control. Under the agreement, telework is
“provided at the sole discretion of the Appointing Authority, and may be terminated by the employee or employer at any time, with or without cause.”
Justice Waples wrote that drawing a rigid legal distinction between the governor and appointed department heads made “little practical or legal sense.” Because agency leaders serve under the governor and state law defines the employer in collective bargaining as the state represented by the governor, the administration possessed direct authority to set executive branch working standards.
The court also dismissed the board’s finding that the state was obligated to prove an operational breakdown to justify bringing employees back to the office. Under the plain language of the contract, the state was entitled to alter telework permissions with or without cause. The justices reiterated that so long as management actions remain rational,
“controlling and directing the work force is an inherent management function.”
Why it matters
The Supreme Court’s ruling restores full administrative authority to the executive branch over state workforce management, cementing the governor’s ability to set uniform return-to-office schedules without opening collective bargaining agreements to renegotiation. For thousands of Vermont state employees who transitioned to regular remote work during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, the decision firmly establishes that telework remains an employer-conferred privilege rather than an enforceable contractual entitlement.
From a legal perspective, the decision delineates clear boundaries around the power of the Vermont Labor Relations Board in contract disputes. By holding that the board erred in substituting its judgment for management’s operational decisions, the high court reinforced traditional contract principles and affirmed the broad scope of management rights reserved in public-sector employment agreements. Unless the VSEA can secure legislative changes to the State Employees Labor Relations Act or negotiate explicit remote-work guarantees in future collective bargaining cycles, the state retains sweeping discretion to modify or terminate flexible work arrangements at will.
Source: Supreme Court of Vermont opinion in Vermont State Employees’ Association v. State of Vermont
