Union that represents Philly city workers sues over return-to-office mandate

A union that represents thousands of Philadelphia city employees sued Mayor Cherelle L. Parker’s administration Tuesday over the mayor’s return-to-office policy, asking a judge to halt the mandate before it takes effect July 15.

The lawsuit was filed by District Council 47 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which represents 6,000 administrative and supervisory employees. The suit claims that the city violated its contract by requiring all employees to return to in-person work.

“The city’s 180-degree turn will cause substantial harm for city workers, and will throw city services into chaos,” the union wrote in its suit.

DC 47 also filed a companion unfair labor practices complaint with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.

The filings throw into question the future of one of the mayor’s signature decisions since taking office in January. She framed employees returning to the office as a critical way to advance her agenda of reviving Center City and improving city services. And it put her at odds with DC 47, one of the city’s largest municipal labor unions, which is already working under an expired contract.

Parker announced the mandate in May, saying that all 26,000 city employees must return to in-office or on-site work five days a week. Former Mayor Jim Kenney had left hybrid work decisions up to department heads. Parker’s mandate impacts about 20% of city employees who work remotely at least part of the time, her administration said.

Leaders of DC 47 immediately opposed Parker’s mandate, saying that the mayor made the decision unilaterally and that it should have been subject to collective bargaining. They say working parents were not given enough time to work out child care plans for the summer, and that the city lacks adequate office space to bring all employees back.

The suit, filed in the Court of Common Pleas, also argues that employees were harmed by the city in part because some were hired during the pandemic with the understanding that they could work remotely. The union argues the five-days-in-office policy will also exacerbate a vacancy crisis that has left more than one in five municipal jobs empty.

“City services will suffer as a result,” the lawsuit reads. “If the city is allowed to enforce its unilateral elimination of alternative work schedules, far more [jobs] will become vacant as employees are unable to accommodate the newfound in-office requirements.”

A hearing on the matter has been scheduled for July 11.

David Wilson, president of AFSCME Local 2187 of District Council 47, which represents much of the city’s professional and administrative staff, said that the decision to end hybrid work schedules unilaterally and abruptly caused “significant harm” to his union’s members.

“The mayor’s decision to bring folks back on the 15th is ridiculous,” Wilson said. “People need to be treated with more dignity and respect, especially employees of the city.”

Parker administration spokesman Joe Grace said Tuesday that the city’s lawyers were reviewing the lawsuit “but Mayor Parker’s position on this issue remains unchanged.”

The mayor has defended her work-from-office policy, saying that it improves culture and collaboration, and that it’s a matter of equity, because much of the blue-collar workforce is unable to work remotely. She has also championed bringing workers back to office in part to bolster activity in Center City, and has asked the leaders of the city’s largest employers to do the same.

Several other labor leaders have said they support Parker’s policy, including Gabe Morgan, vice president of 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union, which represents janitors, security guards, and other office building workers.

“While we understand the concerns of the city workers who are hesitant about returning, we believe this policy is essential for the well-being of our entire city,” Morgan said in a statement.

Parker has insisted that she does not need the municipal unions’ permission to bring workers back to the office, and she said in May of the opposition to her plan: “I know we’re not always going to agree.”

“But I’ve been elected by the people to do the best I can with making the best decision possible to help move our city forward,” she said, “and that’s what I’m trying to do.”

In its lawsuit, DC 47 argued that the policy requires the city to bargain with the union. It wrote that for years union officials had negotiated “alternative work schedules” with the city.

» READ MORE: City workers feel like ‘pawns’ for Center City revival as Parker pushes for in-office requirement

Return-to-office policies have become a post-pandemic flashpoint across the American workforce, and there isn’t a consensus among employers and unions as to whether they must be negotiated. Jurisdictions have handled the mandates differently based in part on language in public-sector unions’ contracts.

Workers have increasingly taken legal action over return-to-office policies, arguing that the mandates are unjust, discriminate against people with disabilities, or violate labor contracts.

During a contentious hearing before a City Council committee last month, Chief Administrative Officer Camille Duchaussee said the policy qualifies as a “work location change” that does not require negotiation with the union.

“We understand that there are folks who made decisions to accept positions with the understanding that there was a hybrid or work-from-home opportunity,” she said. “That work location decision has changed.”

Several members of Council expressed frustration with the plan and pledged their support to union members pushing back against it.

“I’m really disturbed that we hired people under the guise they could work from home,” said Councilmember Kendra Brooks, of the Working Families Party. “It’s problematic and disingenuous.”