Canadian telecommunications giant BCE, the parent company of Bell, has terminated several employees for breaching workplace attendance and remote work policies. However, CBC News has uncovered allegations suggesting that the terminations were unjust and aimed at sidestepping severance payments.
According to an internal email obtained by CBC News, Bell’s chief human resources officer, Nikki Moffat, accused the terminated employees of misrepresenting their presence in the workplace. Disputing this claim, the fired workers have taken to social media and discussions with CBC News to challenge the allegations.
In addition to the accusations of deceptive workplace presence, Bell alleges that some terminated employees were caught swiping in and leaving shortly afterward, as per Moffat’s email. Contrary to this, individuals contacted by CBC News, including Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, a lawyer representing over 30 terminated Bell workers, claim that many of the fired employees had never physically worked in the office, even prior to the pandemic.
De Bousquet stated that numerous terminated employees had never been required to work in the office under previous strict policies, and their immediate supervisors had approved their working arrangements for which they were terminated. He highlighted the discrepancies in messages received by employees, indicating that managers had allowed them to swipe in without requiring them to stay the entire day.
Bell refuted claims of mass terminations, asserting that only a small number of employees were fired. While Bell mandated corporate office employees to be in the office at least two days a week since 2022 and three days since 2023, De Bousquet and his clients contested this policy change, stating it was unilaterally imposed by Bell without their agreement.
Numerous terminated workers and De Bousquet believe that Bell terminated them for economic reasons, using alleged misconduct as a pretext to avoid paying severance. Bell’s spokesperson countered these claims, stating that the terminations were based on clear violations of the company’s code of conduct.
The recent terminations at Bell follow previous job cuts in late 2025, where Bell Canada reduced management and news division jobs to address debt reduction and growth objectives. Despite a four percent increase in operating revenue in the first quarter of this year, Bell’s profits have declined, with growth primarily driven by AI services while traditional services like phone and TV experienced declines.
The stricter enforcement of attendance policies at Bell coincides with the return of white-collar workers to the office post-pandemic, reflecting a broader trend of organizations transitioning back to in-office work arrangements. Public servants in Ontario and Alberta, as well as employees at major Canadian banks and federal public service executives, have also returned to office-based work arrangements in recent months.
Toronto employment lawyer Sundeep Gokhale emphasized that employers generally have the authority to determine employees’ work locations, unless expressly specified in contracts or accommodations are required. He noted that terminating employees for just cause, where severance is not provided, is a high threshold that typically necessitates warnings and opportunities for improvement before dismissal.
Gokhale highlighted that courts view just cause terminations as severe, typically reserved for serious offenses like theft or fraud. He underscored that the outcome of the Bell case will hinge on the evidence presented in each individual employee’s situation.
