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. The board found that the mobility requirement was a prerequisite for employment, as all of these positions were subject to the mobility requirement and Gallegos and his colleagues regularly signed mobility agreements. Here`s the key – if you take this job, you`re more willing to move wherever they tell you – and don`t complain. THis could mean abandoning family and friends. If you have a wife and children – make sure they are good with this and 110% on board. If they have you, sign a mobility agreement, it means they will move you at some point, and it will probably be in a place that you may not be satisfied with (including the high cost area like DC). 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”. Source: I work for the government and we have mobility agreements. Hey guys, I offered a job with the government, but it depends on signing a mobility agreement that says they can relocate you during the training period and after the end of the workout. I was wondering how likely it was that he would be relocated or if someone was forced to move. On the contrary, where an agency has made a political decision that an entire group of positions must be mobile, the Board of Directors considered that its analysis should not be based on whether the Agency had a good reason to reassign a single staff member than whether the Agency`s policy was supported by a legitimate management ground. In Gallegos` opinion, the board deferred the Agency`s decision as to the requirements that must be met in order for the applicant to be eligible for his position and must retain it. 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. 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. Talk to the recruiter or the person who knows the hiring person who knows about the job. Ask to speak to someone who is currently working in the same neighbourhood. They`re going to tell you and be honest, so really listen to what they`re saying. Where people move, how many times it includes overseas, how many times in your career you expect to move, how long people stay in one place