Theo Wells-Spackman is a Report for America corps member who reports for VTDigger.
The Vermont Supreme Court agreed last week to step in quickly to resolve the legal tangle surrounding a controversial labor board decision over telework for state employees. The high court will “endeavor” to take up the issue in June, it said.
The move is intended to speed along the state’s appeal of a Vermont Labor Relations Board order requiring Gov. Phil Scott’s administration to “rescind” its 2025 policy mandating that state employees return to their physical offices three days per week. The body also told the state to offer reinstatement to employees who had left as a result of the new policy, and to reimburse staff for “any monetary losses” the requirement caused.
In a recent motion to accelerate the Supreme Court’s handling of the case, state attorneys wrote that the April 1 order has caused “substantial disruptions and uncertainty” for the government’s operations.
“Because of the unprecedented nature of the Board’s Order, the State is anxious to have the issue resolved as soon as possible,” the lawyers wrote.
The labor board’s decision followed monthslong legal and political fights over the issue. While Scott said the policy was designed to increase collaboration and transparency in his administration, the move was met with an outcry from the Vermont State Employees’ Association. During the Covid-19 pandemic, many state staff began working from home, and the union said the impacts of removing such flexible telework options would be “devastating.”
Scott’s office said the labor board’s April decision was “disappointing, but not surprising” and characterized the body itself as “broken.” Top officials quickly appealed the labor board’s order to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Late last month, Scott’s administration also asked for the proceedings to be hurried in order to minimize alleged disruptions caused by the board’s decision. Attorneys for the state said the order contains contradictions about precisely what set of telework policies the administration must revert to. And the requirements around rehiring former employees make current recruitment difficult, they added, particularly given that such mandates could soon be reversed.
In their response, union lawyers said the state had not fully availed itself of the labor board — among other resources — to clarify its obligations under the April order. Although union leadership has expressed eagerness to reach a conclusion on the issue, the attorneys also expressed reservations in the filing about the fairness of speeding up such a broad, consequential case.
In recent weeks, the return-to-office policy has remained in limbo as the Supreme Court declined the administration’s initial request to pause the labor board order while the appeal ran its course. The state had sought a similar pause from the labor board itself without yet receiving a response, its lawyers noted.
On April 27, the Supreme Court granted the state’s motion to speed the case along, agreeing to the state’s proposed deadlines. The court laid out a schedule ending in early June for required arguments and responses from both parties, and said the body intends to schedule any oral arguments in the case during its term between June 16 and 18.
