The union had agreed to contract language it may now regret – and a $42K fee award made things worse
Nebraska's top court just backed an employer's right to end remote work – no union bargaining required – but drew the line at punishing the union.
In a decision filed on April 17, 2026, the Nebraska Supreme Court sided with the State of Nebraska in a dispute over Governor Jim Pillen's executive order generally prohibiting remote work for state employees. The court found the state had no obligation to negotiate the policy change with its employees' union – because the union had already agreed to contract language that gave the state the power to do exactly what it did.
The case traces back to November 2023, when Governor Pillen ordered state executive branch employees to report to their assigned offices, facilities, or field locations instead of working remotely. The order included a handful of exceptions, such as when an agency lacked available office space or when an employee's work hours fell outside normal business hours, but the default was clear: remote work was over.
The Nebraska Association of Public Employees Local 61, an AFSCME-affiliated union representing many state employees, pushed back. The union took the position that remote work was a mandatory subject of bargaining and demanded negotiations. The state refused.
The union then filed a prohibited practices petition with Nebraska's Commission of Industrial Relations, alleging the state had violated state labor law by declining to negotiate. After a hearing, the commission dismissed the petition. It also went a step further, finding the union had acted in bad faith and ordering it to pay the state $42,234.63 in attorney fees.
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal but threw out the fee award.
At the heart of the ruling is a provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the state. That provision gave the state the right to change the composition and site of the workforce. The court found that this language – agreed to by the union – plainly covered the governor's decision to end remote work. The state was exercising a right already baked into the contract.
The union tried several angles on appeal. It argued the contract did not specifically mention remote work. The court said it did not need to – the contract only needed to cover the general subject, and the language about changing the site of the workforce was broad enough to encompass a remote work prohibition. The union also argued the language was too broad to count. The court disagreed, finding the provision was specific enough to cover work location changes without being so sweeping as to give the state unlimited authority over everything.
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.
