BCE, a major Canadian corporation that owns Bell, has recently dismissed several employees for breaching workplace attendance and remote work policies. However, allegations have surfaced suggesting that the terminations were unjust and aimed at avoiding severance payouts. According to an email from Bell’s chief human resources officer, Nikki Moffat, the dismissed employees were accused of misrepresenting their presence at work. Nonetheless, the terminated workers have refuted these claims on social media and in discussions with CBC News.
In response to Bell’s accusations of deceptive workplace behavior, terminated employees and their legal representative, Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, have contested the company’s claims. De Bousquet, an employment lawyer based in Mississauga, revealed that he has been approached by over 30 former Bell employees and suspects there could be hundreds more affected. Contrary to Bell’s assertion that only a small number of employees were terminated, De Bousquet emphasized that many of these individuals had never physically worked in the office, even predating the pandemic.
Bell has asserted that its corporate office employees were required to be present in the office at least two days a week since 2022 and three days since 2023. However, De Bousquet and his clients dispute this policy change, arguing that longstanding employees who had not previously been mandated to work in the office were suddenly terminated for non-compliance. Furthermore, employees claim that their immediate supervisors had approved the working arrangements for which they were dismissed.
De Bousquet highlighted that numerous terminated employees were not provided with warnings or suspensions before being fired. He and the affected workers believe that Bell’s motive for termination was primarily economic, alleging that the misconduct claims were a strategy to avoid paying severance. Typically, dismissed employees would be entitled to severance pay, a significant sum that Bell seeks to circumvent by alleging misconduct.
In response to the accusations, Bell’s spokesperson, Luc Levasseur, stated that the terminations were based on clear violations of the company’s code of conduct. Levasseur also mentioned that managers condoning inappropriate behavior were also terminated following investigations. Despite Bell’s denial of economic motives, the terminations occurred shortly after the company’s announcement of job cuts in late 2025, aiming to reduce debt and enhance growth.
The recent enforcement of attendance policies by Bell coincides with the return of white-collar workers to office settings across Canada post-pandemic. The situation has sparked discussions on employee rights, work-from-home arrangements, and the boundaries of employer authority in dictating workplace locations. Toronto-based employment lawyer Sundeep Gokhale emphasized the complexities of work-from-home policies and the stringent criteria for terminating employees for just cause, noting that evidence will play a crucial role in evaluating each case.
As Bell faces scrutiny over its terminations, the matter underscores the evolving landscape of work arrangements and the legal considerations surrounding employment practices in the modern workplace.