The Vermont state labor board ruled Wednesday that Gov. Phil Scott exceeded his authority when he ordered roughly 3,000 state employees back to their physical offices three days a week, finding that his administration bypassed legally required union negotiations before implementing the policy.
The Vermont Labor Relations Board, in a 60-page decision, directed the Scott administration to rescind the mandate, return to the telework policy in place before December 1, give affected workers the opportunity to resume prior remote work arrangements, offer reinstatement to any employee who left state employment as a result of the mandate, and reimburse all affected employees for any financial losses they incurred. The board also issued a formal cease-and-desist order requiring the state to stop failing to bargain in good faith with the Vermont State Employees’ Association over telework.
The board’s legal conclusion was unambiguous: telework is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the State Employees Labor Relations Act, and the unilateral imposition of new conditions without bargaining is, in the board’s words, “a per se violation.”
🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁
How It Got Here
Scott announced the return-to-office requirement in August 2025, directing executive branch employees who had been working remotely since the pandemic to report to their designated offices a minimum of three days a week beginning December 1. The administration framed the policy as necessary to restore collaboration, improve mentorship, and strengthen state government’s visibility and service to Vermonters.
The Vermont State Employees’ Association opposed the mandate immediately. More than 3,500 of the state’s approximately 8,000 employees signed a petition against it. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge on November 10, 2025, arguing the administration had unilaterally changed a condition of employment without negotiating.
Before the December 1 start date, the union sought a court order to halt the policy. A Washington County Superior Court judge denied that request, and state employees returned to required in-person work as scheduled. The union’s labor board case continued on a separate track, with hearings held in February 2026 and post-hearing briefs filed in March.
Wednesday’s ruling was the outcome of that process.
What the Board Found
The board’s findings go beyond procedural violations. The decision documents that when the union asked state representatives in October 2025 what data the governor relied on in making his decision, state officials answered that they did not know. When the union asked whether any data existed showing that telework had negatively impacted services to Vermonters, state representatives said they were unaware of any such data.
The board also noted that the administration’s own former Human Resources Commissioner, Beth Fastiggi, testified before a legislative committee in 2023 that state employees were more productive working remotely, that supervisors had successfully adapted to managing remote teams, and that employers competing for top administrative talent could not afford to eliminate telework flexibility.
The board found the administration’s legal argument — that the Governor held broad discretion under the existing Telework Policy to impose the new standard — unpersuasive. The board noted that the word “Governor” does not appear anywhere in Telework Policy 11.9. The policy’s discretion rests with individual department and agency Appointing Authorities, not the chief executive. When state witnesses were asked to explain the operational needs justifying the mandate, the board found their answers circular: the operating need was defined as compliance with the standard, and the standard existed to meet the operating need.
The board further found that the December 1 implementation date carried no operational significance. Testimony revealed the date was chosen to avoid conflict with the January budget process.
Scott Pushes Back, Vows Appeal
The ruling drew a sharp response. Scott called the board “broken” and said a fair and unbiased process was impossible with its current makeup — a notable charge given that Scott himself appointed four of the board’s five members and reappointed the fifth.
In a formal statement, Scott’s office said: “No one could thoughtfully and objectively review the facts and documentation the State presented — alongside the convoluted and changing arguments the Union presented — and come to this conclusion.”
The administration characterized the reimbursement order as an unacceptable cost to Vermont taxpayers and warned the ruling sets “an extremely dangerous precedent for future governors.” The state has already filed a notice of appeal with the Vermont Supreme Court and has requested a stay of the board’s order. Scott said Wednesday he expects the stay to be granted, meaning the three-day standard remains in effect for now.
“We believe we’ll get a stay so we will continue to do what we’re doing today,” Scott said.
The VSEA called the ruling a vindication. Executive Director Steve Howard put it plainly: “The governor is not a king. When you have a union, you have to collectively bargain in good faith.”
Proposal 3 Waiting in the Wings
The case now moves to the Vermont Supreme Court, where the central question will be whether a governor can impose executive branch work standards without first bargaining with the union representing those workers. That question carries implications well beyond this dispute.
Vermont voters will decide in November 2026 whether to ratify Proposal 3, a constitutional amendment that would embed collective bargaining rights directly into the Vermont Constitution. Under current law, those rights exist by statute — meaning a future legislature could adjust the framework through ordinary lawmaking. If Proposal 3 passes, that option closes. Any future attempt to narrow bargaining scope or alter union-negotiated working conditions could face a constitutional challenge, not merely a labor board complaint.
Wednesday’s ruling was decided entirely under existing statutory law. The board found the Scott administration violated current standards — standards that remain, in theory, subject to legislative adjustment.
Proposal 3 would make that adjustment permanently unavailable.
Supporters argue the amendment protects workers from future erosion of rights through ordinary politics. Critics argue it locks in a labor policy framework and removes the flexibility any future governor or legislature might need to manage Vermont’s public workforce through changed circumstances — fiscal, operational, or otherwise.
The Vermont Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will clarify what a governor can and cannot do under current law. What it cannot answer is the question voters will face in November: whether those boundaries belong in statute — or written permanently into Vermont’s Constitution.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram
#fyivt #VermontPolitics #PhilScott #Proposal3
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply