Why It Matters
A legal fight over telework in Vermont has reached the state’s highest court, with roughly 8,000 unionized state employees waiting to learn whether the governor had the unilateral authority to order them back to the office — or whether that decision required collective bargaining first.
What Happened
The Vermont Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in a dispute between the state government and the Vermont State Employees’ Association over changes to remote work arrangements. The case stems from a decision by Gov. Phil Scott, who announced in August that state employees would be required to report to their workplaces at least three days per week beginning in December.
The Vermont Labor Relations Board ruled in April that the state should have bargained with the union before implementing the change, siding with workers. The state appealed that ruling, bringing the case before the Supreme Court.
State employees packed the Supreme Court chambers for the hearing, many wearing union t-shirts and buttons. Vermont Solicitor General Jonathan Rose, arguing on behalf of the state, was interrupted within roughly 30 seconds of beginning his argument by Justice Nancy Waples. Justices asked Rose 10 questions over the half-hour session, compared to 8 questions directed at union attorney Alfred Gordon O’Connell.
Justices Nancy Waples, Christina Nolan, and Michael Drescher drove most of the questioning from the bench.
The Legal Argument
The central question before the court is whether a 2012 teleworking policy granted the governor “sole discretion” to alter employees’ remote work arrangements without triggering a bargaining obligation under state labor law. The state contends that authority was already established; the union argues the governor exceeded it by making a sweeping, uniform change rather than evaluating workers on a case-by-case basis.
O’Connell pointed to the distinction between individualized decisions and a blanket order. “If Scott sat down and looked at each employee’s circumstance, that would be a completely different case,” he said during arguments. Rose, asked by a justice whether the state should have bargained over the change, answered simply: “No, it shouldn’t have, your honor.”
New Policy Issued Same Day
In a notable development, the state announced a new teleworking policy on the same day as the Supreme Court hearing — a direct response to the labor board’s April ruling. The updated policy restores teleworking arrangements for employees hired before December 2025, returning them to the arrangement that had been in place prior to Scott’s return-to-office announcement. No timeline was provided for when the Supreme Court would issue its ruling in the case.
By the Numbers
- 8,000 — unionized state employees affected by the telework dispute
- 10 months — duration of union activism and legal challenges since Scott’s August announcement
- 2012 — year of the original teleworking policy at the center of the legal question
- 30 seconds — time before Solicitor General Rose was first interrupted during arguments
- 30 minutes — total duration of questioning before the court
Zoom Out
Vermont’s dispute reflects a broader national debate over remote work in the public sector. Several state governments have moved to roll back pandemic-era telework policies in recent years, and unions representing government workers have increasingly pushed back through labor boards and the courts. The outcome in Vermont could set a precedent for how similar return-to-office mandates are handled in states where public-sector collective bargaining rights are strong. Vermont’s workforce and labor developments continue to intersect with broader issues of public services and state investment, including recent changes to Vermont’s school-choice tuitioning law drawing new residents and debates around public transit access in the state.
What’s Next
No timeline was given for the Supreme Court’s decision. In the interim, the state’s newly issued policy offers partial relief to employees hired before December 2025, though the core legal question — whether the governor must bargain over telework policy changes — remains unresolved pending the court’s ruling.