BCE, a major Canadian corporation that owns Bell, has terminated multiple employees for breaching workplace attendance and remote work policies. However, allegations suggest that the dismissals may have been unjustified and aimed at avoiding severance payments. According to an email from Bell’s chief human resources officer, Nikki Moffat, the terminated employees were accused of misrepresenting their presence at work. Nevertheless, some dismissed workers dispute this claim on social media and in discussions with CBC News.
In addition to the allegations of deceptive workplace presence, Bell asserts that some terminated employees were caught swiping in and leaving shortly afterward. However, individuals contacted by CBC News, including lawyer Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet representing over 30 terminated Bell workers, refute these claims. De Bousquet mentioned that many of these employees had never worked in the office, even prior to the pandemic.
Bell countered the claim of hundreds of terminations, stating that only a small number of employees were dismissed. The company did not disclose specific details regarding the number of terminations but mentioned that corporate office employees were required to be in the office for at least two days a week since 2022 and three days since 2023. Nonetheless, De Bousquet and his clients dispute this policy change, emphasizing that some individuals had never agreed to work in the office and their managers had approved their remote working arrangements.
De Bousquet highlighted that many terminated employees were not provided with warnings or suspensions before their dismissals. He suggested that Bell fired them for economic reasons, using alleged misconduct to avoid paying severance. Bell, on the other hand, stated that the terminations were due to clear violations of the company’s code of conduct, after thorough investigations.
The terminations at Bell come after previous job cuts in late 2025 and amidst fluctuating financial results for the company. While operating revenue increased, driven partly by AI services growth, Bell’s traditional services faced declines. The company’s strict enforcement of attendance policies coincides with the return of white-collar workers to offices nationwide post-pandemic.
Toronto employment lawyer Sundeep Gokhale noted that disputes over work-from-home policies have become prevalent across the country. Employers generally have the authority to determine employees’ work locations unless specified otherwise in employment contracts or accommodations are required. Gokhale explained that firing employees for just cause, where severance is not provided, is a significant threshold to meet, typically reserved for serious offences like theft or fraud.
The outcome of the situation at Bell will hinge on the evidence presented in each employee’s case, according to Gokhale. This development underscores the ongoing challenges and complexities surrounding remote work policies and terminations in the current corporate landscape.
