Bell, a major Canadian corporation, has terminated several employees for breaching workplace attendance and remote work policies. Allegations have surfaced that these terminations were unjustified and aimed at circumventing severance payments. According to an internal email obtained by CBC News, Bell’s chief human resources officer, Nikki Moffat, accused the dismissed employees of misrepresenting their presence at work. However, the fired workers have refuted these claims on social media and in discussions with CBC News.
Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, an employment lawyer representing over 30 terminated Bell employees, asserted that many of his clients had never physically worked in the office, even before the pandemic. Bell refuted claims that hundreds of employees were let go, stating only a “small number” were terminated, without disclosing specific figures. The company insisted that corporate office staff were required to be physically present at least two days a week since 2022 and three days since 2023, a policy contested by De Bousquet and his clients.
De Bousquet revealed that numerous terminated employees were not given warnings or suspensions before their dismissals. He alleged that Bell terminated these individuals for economic reasons, using alleged misconduct as a pretext to avoid paying severance packages. While Bell maintained that the terminations were due to clear violations of its code of conduct, De Bousquet contended that the employees were entitled to severance pay if laid off instead.
Despite Bell’s denial of economic motivations, the terminations occurred following the company’s elimination of 650 management roles and 40 news division positions in late 2025. Bell’s recent financial performance has been mixed, with a drop in profits at its parent company, BCE, amidst increased operating revenue from AI services but declines in traditional services like phone and TV.
The stricter enforcement of attendance policies by Bell coincides with a broader trend of white-collar workers returning to the office post-pandemic. Toronto employment lawyer Sundeep Gokhale emphasized that employers generally have the authority to dictate employees’ work locations unless contractual agreements or accommodations state otherwise. Gokhale highlighted the high threshold for terminating employees for just cause, requiring evidence of serious offenses like theft or fraud.
In conclusion, the situation at Bell underscores the complexities surrounding remote work policies and employee terminations, with legal experts emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to due process in such matters.