Vermont Return-to-Office Mandate Upheld by State Supreme Court

A unanimous reversal

On Friday, Sept. 25, the Vermont Supreme Court sided with Gov. Phil Scott in his fight with the state's largest public-sector union over remote work. The justices ruled unanimously that his administration had the authority to require executive-branch employees to work in person at least three days a week.35 The decision threw out an April 1 order from the Vermont Labor Relations Board, which had told the state to rescind the mandate and repay workers for costs tied to coming into the office.3 Justice Nancy Waples wrote the opinion.4

The case, Vermont State Employees' Association v. State of Vermont, turned on whether the requirement was an unfair labor practice.9 The court held that it was not. Its reasoning was that the telework policy the union had already negotiated gave the state enough discretion to impose the three-day standard without new bargaining.9

In practical terms, this is the latest and probably the last major legal round in a fight that started in August 2025. The governor's win is complete on the authority question. The policy debate is not settled, and the union is now taking its argument to the November ballot.

How the dispute unfolded

Scott's administration announced the Hybrid Work Standard in August 2025, with a start date of Dec. 1.916 The administration framed it as a way to restore collaboration and make better use of state facilities. It also pitched it as a boost for downtown Montpelier's economy.16 The governor also made a fairness argument, asking why office staff should keep working from home when snowplow drivers, nurses and corrections officers cannot.5

The Vermont State Employees' Association, which represents about 6,000 workers, went to two venues in November 2025. It filed an unfair labor practice charge and a grievance with the labor board. It also sued in Washington County Superior Court to delay the policy.14 Judge Dan Richardson declined to block the mandate, saying the questions belonged to the labor board. Workers returned on schedule. By that point, 425 people had asked for exemptions and 25 had been approved, and employees with pending requests did not have to comply until they got an answer.

The union won in April. A 60-page labor board decision found that Scott had overstepped by acting without negotiating. The board ordered the state to rescind the policy, let workers go back to their earlier remote arrangements, and reimburse their losses.12 The board also ordered the state to offer jobs back to employees who had quit because of the mandate.10 Scott's office called the board "broken" and its decision "biased."12 VSEA executive director Steve Howard pointed out that Scott had appointed or reappointed all five of the board's members.12

The high court initially declined to pause the board's order, saying the state first had to ask the board for a stay.10 The state ended the three-day standard on June 21, according to a union update.4 The justices heard oral arguments that same month.2

What the court actually decided

The central document is Policy 11.9, a telework policy the state and the union negotiated in 2012. It describes telework as voluntary and gives management "sole discretion" to approve it. It also lets either side end an arrangement at any time, with or without cause.4 Both sides agreed that telework is a working condition subject to bargaining. They disagreed over whether the bargaining had already been done.4

The labor board read the policy narrowly. In its view, decisions about telework belonged to department heads and appointing authorities, not the governor, and it called the state's justifications "circular and elusive."12 The Supreme Court rejected that reading as too literal, saying it made little practical or legal sense. As head of the executive branch, the court said, Scott holds the same discretion his managers do.5 The justices also said the policy does not require the state to show an operational need before ending a telework agreement.11 The opinion said the governor's assessment of his administration's needs was reasonable, and that judging the wisdom of the decision was not the court's job.2

That judicial restraint is the key to reading the ruling. The court answered a contract question, not a management question. One local analysis put it plainly: the decision settles who has authority but says nothing about whether three office days actually improve productivity or service.4 Because it reversed the board on the merits, the court also never decided whether the board had gone too far in ordering reimbursement and other remedies.4 It also explicitly left out whether the state is complying with Vermont's flexible-work statute.4

Where the coverage diverges

The big facts are consistent across outlets: the decision was unanimous, the court reversed the board, and the mandate is three days a week. The headlines and details are not always consistent.

The first gap is scope. Some broadcast coverage said "all" state employees must return to the office.1 The administration's own court filings show the mandate covers about 3,000 of roughly 8,500 state workers, and many of the rest were already in the office more than three days a week. Estimates of how many people are affected also vary: about 2,500 remote workers in one account, roughly 3,000 in others.115 The lower number appears to come from a 2023 survey of employees who worked from home more than two days a week.11

The second gap matters more for employees: is the mandate in force today? One public-radio report described the order as "back in force," and at least one aggregator said it "remains fully in effect."117 The more careful accounts note that the state dropped the requirement in June, that the opinion sets no new return date, and that the ruling allows the administration to bring the mandate back rather than doing so itself.4 That fits the report that the state Human Resources Department plans to send guidance in the coming weeks.1 The more accurate reading is that the authority has been restored, but the requirement is not yet back in practice. Workers who returned to fuller remote schedules this summer may face another round of changes to their commutes and family logistics.4

The costs that remain

The ruling removes one financial risk for taxpayers: the board's reimbursement order. The governor had warned that it could cover commuting, child care and other costs.13 The board had already put that compensation requirement on hold in May.4

Other costs remain. Before the December rollout, the state signed a five-year lease worth about $2.3 million for space at the Pilgrim Park complex in Waterbury, partly to relieve crowding at the state office complex there.14 The union has argued that this spending shows remote work saves money, and it has cited high vacancy at the Waterbury complex. Administration officials, meanwhile, have pointed to a space shortage at the same site.16 Those two claims have never been reconciled in public.

On staffing, Howard expects skilled specialists to quit rather than commute two hours each way.1 Early data after the December rollout, however, showed little sign of large-scale departures.2 The union's argument may still prove right over a longer period, but so far the evidence for a mass exodus is thin.

Montpelier, on the other hand, has a clear stake. City officials say the number of state workers coming downtown fell by more than half after remote options expanded.11 Local tax receipts have suffered as lunchtime foot traffic declined.1 Howard has rejected that rationale, saying employees feel insulted at being treated as "an ATM for downtown."16

The election overlay

The timing gives the ruling political weight. It came less than six weeks before the Nov. 3 general election, in which Scott is seeking reelection.211 The VSEA has endorsed his Democratic challenger, Amanda Janoo. Howard said longtime Scott voters were asking for Janoo yard signs the afternoon of the decision.11 He has framed the mandate as an affordability problem: he says workers live far from Waterbury and Burlington because they cannot afford housing or find child care nearer the offices.5 Union leaders have also said they will look for relief through other legal avenues and future contract talks.2

Whatever the election result, one change is lasting. Vermont's highest court has said that, under the current contract language, a governor can reshape telework without new negotiations. Any future limits on that power will have to come from bargaining or from new legislation. The courts have declined to impose them.