Nebraska court backs state’s right to kill remote work without union bargaining

The union’s strongest argument was that even if the contract allowed the state to end remote work, the state still had to negotiate over how the policy would be carried out – the exceptions, the procedures, the logistics. The court rejected that too, reasoning that when a contract gives an employer the right to make a decision, it also gives the employer the right to decide how to implement it, unless the contract says otherwise. 

Notably, the court also disapproved a 2017 Nebraska Court of Appeals decision that had read the law more favorably to unions on this point, signaling a shift in how Nebraska courts will apply the contract coverage rule going forward. 

On the attorney fees, the court acknowledged the union lost on the merits but said its legal position was not so baseless as to be frivolous. The union had pointed to existing case law to support its arguments, and the court found that was enough to clear the bar – even though those arguments ultimately failed. 

The negotiation history added context. During earlier contract talks, the union had proposed language giving employees the right to request remote work, with a provision that such requests would not be unreasonably denied. The state refused to discuss it. The union dropped the proposal and ultimately agreed to a deal that included record salary increases. 

For HR professionals, the takeaway is direct: management rights clauses in collective bargaining agreements carry real weight. When a contract gives an employer authority over work locations, that language can shield a return-to-office mandate from further bargaining obligations – even when the union objects.