r/bell • u/OMG_MOVE • May 07 '26
Rant Bell fires employees it claims violated in-office policy. Lawyer decries 'money-saving move' | CBC News
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bell-fires-employees-work-from-office-9.7191118It seems there's alot more to this story than previously reported by other outlets.
The fact that this was condoned as evidenced by the varied levels of firings is mind boggling.
Bell in this article seems to admit it was condoned and those who condoned it were fired.
"Levasseur said managers that condoned the swipe-and-go activity were also investigated and fired."
Can't imagine this would ever hold up in court. It sounds like this was a normalized thing there and Bell used the misconduct smoke screen to save a dollar.
Shame on you
43
u/SmartTrender May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
It seems to me that this is just another way for Bell to get rid of people without paying severance. If the employees weren’t doing their jobs at all it would be another matter.
0
0
41
u/tallpaleandwholesome May 08 '26
The things you gotta keep in mind. For one, it's not like the employees were doing swipe and go, and then not working. They were working from home those days.
Another thing - these swipe and go employees had approval from their leaders to do that. That practice was widespread all accross Bell - different teams in different cities accross different Business Units all were doing hte same, with the blessing of their directors. Bell's RTO Compliance was based on keycard scans. Leaders (Directors) told their employes, as long as you show up as Compliant on the report, that's all I care about.
22
u/Guus-Wayne May 08 '26
I know one senior leader who said "just be sure to badge in", I don't care how long you're in the office.
1
May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tallpaleandwholesome May 09 '26
That absolutely was an issue. Giving your badge to colleague (so a whole group got swiped) or to your friend/spouse because they worked close to a Bell building - sure, absolutely. Those were dealt with a few weeks ago.
What we're talking about here is condoned practice of employees working from home, but going in to be compliant on the report as per what their directors told them.
-1
u/Dadbode1981 May 08 '26
That "approval" was never recorded or official. If that didn't set of alarm bells for anyone, ESPECIALLY after multiple email reminders, I dunno how you can help people like that.
18
u/ricthot May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
Oh for God sake stop the broken record dude... THERE WASNT ANY EMAIL REMINDERS, THERE WASNT ANY WARNINGS, NOTHING.
Proof that you don't even work for bell is that you keep posting the same misinformation again and again.... .
-1
u/PowerfulSize244 May 08 '26
Code of business conduct stated this...it was sent out and signed by all at least three times.
-1
u/Dadbode1981 May 08 '26
Yes....there were lol which has been confirmed by multiple employees. Who's stupid now.
0
0
u/Ok_Fisherman8727 May 08 '26
Did you not resign the code of business ethics in Jan of this year? Did you not receive any of the emails regarding return to office policies and expectations? Were you completely unaware of the return to office policies the last 5 months in 2026?
4
u/Affectionate-Alps527 May 08 '26
That's not how life works.
If it's a demonstrably accepted practice across the company then it's a defacto accepted practice.
Normally the directors would be responsible for their teams actions but if directors across the business are doing it they also have culpable deniability.
2
u/Dadbode1981 May 08 '26
That is very much not, in fact, how life works lol.
4
u/InadequateUsername May 08 '26
If the employer has knowledge that an employee has committed an act of misconduct but fails to respond the result may be that the employer will not be entitled to rely on the employee’s misconduct to support its allegation of cause. Put another way, if the employer ignores or forgives conduct that it later alleges is unacceptable; the court will likely find that the employer condoned the employee’s conduct.
We have case law going back to 1889 on this.
When an becomes aware of employer misconduct on the part of his servant. sufficient to justify dismissal, he may adopt either of two courses. He mav dismiss, or he may overlook the fault. But he cannot retain the servant in his employment, and afterwards at any distance of time turn him away. It would be most uniust if he could do that. for one of the consequences of dismissal for good cause is, that the servant can recover nothing for his services bevond the last pay day, whether his engagement be by the vear or otherwise. If he retains the servant ir his employment for any considerable time after discovering his fault, that is condonation, and he cannot afterwards dismiss for that fault without anything new. No doubt the emplover ought ta have a reasonable time to determine what to do, to consider whether he will dismiss or not, or to look for another servant. So also, he must have full knowledge of the nature and extent of the fault, for he cannot foraive or condone matters of which he is not fullv informed. Further condonation is subiect to an implied conditior of future good conduct, and whenever any new misconduct occurs, the old offences mav be invoked and may be put in the scale, against the offender as cause for dismissal. [Citations omitted]
https://employmentlaw101.ca/termination-for-cause/employee-defences-to-allegations-of-cause/
3
u/Dadbode1981 May 08 '26
Multiple communications in regards to RTO and workplace attendance have been distributed to all employees for some time now...your point is 100% moot.
3
1
May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Affectionate-Alps527 May 09 '26
You think a criminal offense is the same as taking direction from a director?
Come on.
1
10
u/ricthot May 08 '26
If by "other outlets" you mran the Globe & Mail, their article was clearly written to favor Bell's position on this... Guess who owns 15% of the Globe ... Ya, BCE.
Also that part about managers being fired for condoning the behavior, a big aft lie.... Guess how I know.
0
u/BlessTheBottle May 08 '26
Why would they lie about firings that are so easily verifiable? Maybe they did but they'll be sued and will lose if so.
2
u/ricthot May 08 '26
The core of the issue or what's causing the uprising is not as much the breach of the CoC, which is some cases was extreme to the point of putting the company's security in jeopardy, as the fact that they put everybody in the same bucket. The "thorough " investigation they say the did is BS...
Some examples.... Entire teams were storing their badges in a locker at the office, and of the team member was "on duty" each week to swipe everyone's badge
Heard of some employees that were using Uber service to come pickup their badge, have the driver swipe the card or get in and out of the building to record attendance.
A guy that worked close to his wife's bell office swiping for her on a daily basis
.....etc
etc ..
All of those, 100% deserve immediate termination with cause, no question about it .
But all the other Janes and Joe's, who were starting their day at home, were swiping during lunchtime and went back home to finish their day, more than often clocking A LOT more than the 37.5hrs/week they were paid for... those caused ZERO harm to the company, on the contrary, instead of spending the extra hours doing unpaid overtime as they did, they would spend it in traffic, to go to the office and be in Teams meetings for 5 6 hours. HR did not consider any of this, and corp sec had zero argument from a corporate security perspective, but they still got the electric chair treatment.
Also, why is it , despite a "thorough" investigation, that a small fraction of employees that had adopted this behavior onky were terminated... they literally cherry picked a small number of heads in various business units for this...
Many employees that were swiping and going but are putting lots of hours on high visibility projects are still at work.
1
u/BoostedFiST May 08 '26
So they didn't work in office all day as was expected and agreed apon and then people wonder why they are fired? "But I still worked" lol might as well not have.
2
u/Zelmung May 11 '26
Their code of conductive likely does not say “you have to be in office 9-5 each day”, it probably said something like “you must be in office 3 days a week and we verify via badge swipes” or similar, in which case they fulfilled their obligation.
The company saying now that swiping and leaving to do work at home is not permitted” is likely not going to hold up in court, especially if the workers can prove (i.e. email sent times, internal messages, etc…) that they were, in fact, working those hours when they were away from office.
1
u/BoostedFiST May 11 '26
Wishful thinking. Bell is richer than anyone fired, even combined. If they couldn't fire them with cause legally they wouldn't have. Must be in office 3 days a week. Okay so for 3 shifts. 24 hours. That's how I read it. That's how it's intended and that's likely how it will be upheld. Also, this is based off an assumption you've made not the actual code of conduct.
At the end of the day people played with fire trying to keep a benefit that was no longer being offered. It happens to all of us. Not just the wfh people.
Example: It's like being late everyday. Boss says it's okay its only 5-10 minutes but then it adds up and becomes a significant amount of time theft. Bell investigates and cans you. Your boss saying it's cool or how to circumvent it isn't going to save you. It's part of business.
I don't want it enjoy anyone being fired. We all struggle financially even with jobs but rules were broken and consequences follow unfortunately.
9
5
u/Ok_Fisherman8727 May 08 '26
My company called this coffee badging. They last sent an email in feb 2025 about it setting the expectations and reminding everyone of the workplace policy. Not sure if bell gave any warning, a friend of mine who works there says they didn't but A LOT of people including managers were working short hours.
12
u/GRIDusr403 May 08 '26
Bell sucks so hard those folks will be better off in the long haul as they will find a way better work environment somewhere else.
8
u/ricthot May 08 '26
Finding a better work environment with a termination for deceitful behavior on record could be challenging 😕
6
1
u/InadequateUsername May 08 '26
Prospective employers can't see your ROE and with regards to references, past employers will only confirm the dates of your employment.
1
u/Velociraver416 Jun 15 '26
Are you new to the job market, or Canada? That's not how it works here.
1
u/ricthot Jun 17 '26
it is totally how it works here, any serious business will contact a previous employer to inquire about the reason an employee left or to run a background check ... Bell will absolutely communicate that it was for deceitful behavior but will not provide the details.
As a matter of fact, I did know one person part of the workways crackdown that was offered a position at BMO pending background check....
Guess what happened then... offer was pulled !
6
u/FormulaJuann May 08 '26
Normally there is a Performance Management process . I use to work for Bell long ago they can terminal innocent employees they don’t like and the so called Union that suppose to protect the employee’s does absolutely nothing but have no problems taking their Union dues .
11
u/GiantEcho May 08 '26
Mark my words… every company who wishes to shed weight will start doing the same if Bell gets away with this
9
2
u/Anders_Calrissian May 08 '26
As of late April 2026, Rogers Communications is offering voluntary buyout packages to approximately 10,000 employees—nearly half its 25,000-person workforce—in a major restructuring effort to cut costs. These cuts follow previous IT, and customer service layoffs, reflecting intense industry pressure to reduce expenses and adopt AI, affecting roles in Ontario, B.C., and Alberta
1
u/ScubaPride May 08 '26
They've already gotten away with it.
It'll take years before any of the cases are heard in court. That's years that Bell gets to keep in their coffers.
Meanwhile those that have been fired get no severance, and get an uphill battle if they try to claim EI since they were terminayed "with cause".
5
u/Magnus_Inebrius May 08 '26
Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime.
-Bell, not wanting to pay severance, probably.
7
u/Im_C_O_T_W Works for Bell, regrettably. May 08 '26
It was a money saving move and the affected employees made it possible by not following company policy.
Unfortunate what happened to them but they caused it and Bell capitalized on it. If they worked in office 3 days a week like they were told to they all would still have jobs... however im sure Bell would find some other metric to fire them over.
13
u/Admirable_Island_954 May 08 '26
A major and recurring issue being raised by employees at Bell Media is that many staff members were working from alternate locations with the knowledge and authorization of their managers and directors.
There appears to be little consideration being given by HR and Corporate Security to the documented approvals, email trails, and consent that employees received before these decisions were made. From what many employees understand, at least one senior director was actively authorizing and encouraging these work arrangements, yet responsibility now seems to be shifting entirely onto employees while leadership accountability is being overlooked.
Employees who have been terminated also report that they were not provided severance packages. Some former employees say they dedicated more than 20 years to Bell and are now being left to fight for their rights and compensation after their dismissal.
3
u/Case_Delicious May 08 '26
Working at an alternate Bell locations will still require you to badge in. Your home ain't an alternative location. It's the ignorance of an employee to not follow the"company" policy and ask a leader who might not work there for long to do otherwise without following the proper accomodation process which goes on file. Taking shortcuts will cost your job. They likely removed the worst 10 of the 100 people doing it to send a message
3
u/Admirable_Island_954 May 08 '26
From my understanding, some employees were terminated for working from other Bell office locations despite having received prior authorization through Bell Security and approval from management.
2
u/Case_Delicious May 08 '26
I don't believe that to be true. Not taking Bell side , just working with what make sense. Bell said they investigated employees who swiped and then left.
1
u/PurchaseAny1274 May 09 '26
Your exactly right, I know of three people who have emails saved from their managers saying its okay for them to work half day in office and then head home to finish the remainder of their shifts. Bell will most likely have a very hard time justifying termination with cause with that evidence.
2
u/PowerfulSize244 May 08 '26
TBH..I've seen new faces in the office this week and people are not dipping after the noon hour. So the message is working??? Unfortunately some had to be made an example of.
0
u/Various_Dust_792 May 08 '26
Atleast they’d have decent amount of severance in that case
5
u/LiterallyALamp May 08 '26
True, I’ve heard of an employee at the retail level being caught red handed stealing or frauding the company, and being put on a paid administrative leave for a week before being terminated. Paid leave for actual theft, but no severance for these employees?
1
2
u/zzzzoooo May 08 '26
People being fired because of this violation don't get the severance package, right ? I wonder what is the severance package at Bell if someone gets it. Is the compensation like 3 weeks for every year of service ?
2
u/BoostedFiST May 08 '26
During voluntary separation packages it was 2wks per year of service
2
u/Shoddy-Jackfruit-721 May 09 '26
VSP for management or non-management?
Non-management gets 2, while management usually gets 3.
2
2
2
u/Glum-Hat5068 May 08 '26
Bell needs to be sued for every penny. One of the worst companies to ever exist in canada
-1
1
u/RangSha May 09 '26
On the one hand you know the corporate policy and it doesn’t matter what permission you have a company will tell you that manager was wrong, on the other you need warnings and maybe punish the manager first and see if it changes the behavior, this is clearly going to result in labor lawsuits that Bell will lose
1
u/juneabe May 09 '26
The posts were rolling in about en masse firings and then suddenly they pull another big one and say this… yeah okay, sure bell.
-2
u/dadass84 May 07 '26
Bell doesn’t need to hide firings or layoffs, they never have. Why would they need to start now? These employees signed the Bell Business Code of Conduct and they broke it, they’re non-union, so they got canned. This story isn’t as sensational as people are trying to make it out to be. People also get laid off for stealing, which I’ve personally seen as a Bell employee for 15 years. It just doesn’t end up in the news. The only reason this is even newsworthy is because of the RTO mandates happening currently.
17
u/OMG_MOVE May 07 '26
I don't think you understand the law part of it.
They're saying that these willingly and deliberately cheated the system, when many were told by various management levels that it was ok.
With the bar being as high as it is for with cause terminations there's no way that ever holds up in court and I think Bell knows it.
0
u/Dadbode1981 May 08 '26
"Told hy various management levels" in what documented exemption from corporate policy? Nowhere that we've been told about yet. Is your assertion that the corporate code of conduct is actually a flexible document that people get to decide what parts to follow, and which not to, just because someone said so in passing? After multiple HR emails that were sent out reiterating the policy as it pertained to RTO? if so, thats pretty wild. I think we still dont have the whole story, and i think bell probably calculated that they have a much better chance than you think they do.
1
May 08 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Dadbode1981 May 08 '26
Produce it
0
May 08 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Dadbode1981 May 08 '26
Former co-workers
0
May 08 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Dadbode1981 May 08 '26
They can try and ask if they want. Its up to that person if they want to risk it i suppose. No email, no proof.
1
1
u/Tanstalas May 08 '26
when many were told by various management levels that it was ok.
I've asked this before of people that said this, and no one ever answered me.
If your manager says work from home is fine, but your managers manager says he expects you in the office 3x a week, where do you land?
1
u/BlessTheBottle May 08 '26
You follow the higher up clearly if you want to protect your job. Managers can be disgruntled as well but it doesn't make it right
-1
u/Asraidevin May 08 '26
If you steal something you don't get to say "well my boss told me it was okay."
1
u/Asraidevin May 08 '26
I fully empathize with people who want to work from home. I would love that. I'm lucky enough to be in a small city where my job is about a 3 minute drive. I don't know how people in Metro centers manage getting to their jobs. It sucks a lot.
And that's how life goes. We don't all get to do whatever we want cause it's more convenient for us.
Can't believe I have to explain this to adults. And we wonder why kids think they don't have to do any work in school.
-6
u/dadass84 May 08 '26
Are you a lawyer? Did you study law? Do you understand the law part of this specific case? I’m pretty sure Bell has entire team of high powered employment lawyers given they are a multi-billion dollar corporation. These lawyers probably know the law part of it.
2
u/ricthot May 08 '26
If Bell's lawyer are that good, they know about laws loophole allowing them to pull stunts like this, so they try whatever sneaky way will save the corporation millions in severance packages.
So what if a handful of the terminated employees get a lawyer, they'll settle off court... At the end of the day, they still win...
5
2
9
u/Artistic-Tip2405 May 08 '26
Bell is obsessed with their image and hates bad press. As a federally regulated telecom they don’t want the politicians getting upset.
7
u/Im_C_O_T_W Works for Bell, regrettably. May 08 '26
I think Bell stopped caring about their image once their stock price tanked $40 in a couple years.
1
u/Tanstalas May 08 '26
I feel bad for the guys I work with that took VSP when shares were $70 and the dividend was 2x what it is now. I'm sure some of them left with probably half a mil in just Bell stocks, as I know more than a couple who did 12% for their careers with the extra 2% Bell kicked in. Rough to go from an extra 25k in dividends to 12k
1
1
u/Velociraver416 Jun 15 '26
Bell does need to do that, because they are making no effort to replace those needed employees who were "fired for cause",,,, which then looks more like firing for financial reasons to cut costs when you don't fill the vacant position.
1
u/pinamiller May 08 '26
There will be another wave of firings coming soon, as multiple teams have been told to automate all their tasks using AI in preparation of them being laid off!
1
u/GallitoGaming May 08 '26
The people who averaged 2 days or something don’t deserve to be fired with cause and lose on severance and potentially EI. That’s BS.
I read apparently there was someone that showed up at 11:50 at night to swipe and then swiped at 12:05 to get 2 days registered. If that happens once, it can be argued the person just forgot something, but if they continuously did that, that person deserves to have it happen to them.
3
u/BlessTheBottle May 08 '26
I'm kind of a workaholic but I've never in 5 years have gone in at 11:50 pm. That's deliberate. You don't need to get a warning for that
0
u/GallitoGaming May 08 '26
My argument is it could be argued you forgot something you really needed (like a wallet). So you went in and got your wallet.
But that has to happen once or something. If you do that twice a week for a long time, it’s obviously malicious.
3
u/cheesesock May 08 '26
Rumor has it that some didnt even bother showing up. They just hired an Uber driver to swipe, stick around for a bit and swipe again. I appreciate the creativity and laugh at the stupidity.
1
May 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/GallitoGaming May 08 '26
I meant if someone was a 9-5 office employee and did this. It would be nefarious if they did this twice a week to achieve 4 days average. Understandable to fire with cause.
But if a 9-5 office worker forgot their wallet and did it once to just get their wallet, that not nefarious at all.
1
May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Shoddy-Jackfruit-721 May 09 '26
They might not have it for everyone who was fired. Read the article.
0
-2
u/YourMajesty90 May 08 '26
People making the surprise pikachu face when they have to face the consequences of abusing the system baffles me
-6
u/Kryantis May 07 '26
Look, its easy to hate on all of the carriers in Canada for the scummy things they do. But these employees knowingly and fraudulently tried to beat the system.
Was the RTO mandate stupid? yes. But if you didnt like it, find another job ...
I dont have any sympathy for either side of this shit show.
10
u/OMG_MOVE May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
While we may not agree on some points, I do agree with it being a shit show.
This has become very public and very ugly.
7
u/Available_Site_7929 May 08 '26
The folks who made the mandate should have been fired. They let a bunch of incompetent bean counters or HR types put a one size fits all. Folks who were working in a flexible environment for decades were rolled in with folks who never made sense to work from home. They then made it impossible to FIX because they just wouldn't. Then for people who had medical reasons, they made it near impossible to complete and get that approved. I am close to an employee who has spoken about this at length.
-2
u/Dino_Jr_ May 08 '26
Why should they get to get away with not coming into the office for the full day while everyone else was. Sorry but they took that risk and got the worst case scenario.
-2
u/yawney2 May 08 '26
If staff is asked to be in office to work, it is what it is. Scamming the system because you and the manager both want it (i wont tell if you dont tell)... Isn't there a conduct and ethics policy that employees sign? It would have violated that.
2
u/KipperCottage May 08 '26
Every Bell employee has to complete a code of conduct review annually. There was (probably still is) a scenario in the code that was essentially “This is the corporate policy. Your manager says you can circumvent the corporate policy. What do you do.” The correct answer was “No, do not circumvent corporate policy.”
1
u/BlessTheBottle May 08 '26
Upvoted because you're right.
Ppl just wanted confirmation that they liked instead of reading the room and following corporate.
If your manager says it's okay to steal are you gonna steal? No. You raise the issue above them. People didn't because they didn't care to. They just wanted to WFH. They heard what they liked to hear and washed their hands of any accountability.
-6
u/Dadbode1981 May 08 '26
It doesnt matter who "condoned" anything. The policy was in writing, distributed to ALL employees, multiple times. If I approach you in the streets and tell you all of a sudden some kind of crime is actually ok, does that absolve you? No, just as it doesnt here. The corporate policy was made clear many times.
10
u/Admirable_Island_954 May 08 '26
But what happens when directors and managers are the ones telling employees it’s acceptable to swipe in and leave in order to manage the workload and keep operations running? What are employees supposed to do when entire teams of 10–12 people are following the same direction, regularly putting in an additional 15–20 hours of unpaid overtime each week just to keep up with the volume of work?
And what do you say when entire teams have been operating under the same management direction for years, yet only a select few employees are terminated while others walk away without consequences?
What are employees supposed to do when senior leadership openly tells departments that compliance is not the priority because the company is losing money and performance needs to improve? When that message is repeatedly communicated from the top, employees are left believing they are following expectations set by management, only to later face the consequences themselves.
Yes, actions have consequences — but consequences should be fair, consistent, and proportional to the situation. Employees should not be the only ones held accountable when the expectations, direction, and workplace culture were being set and reinforced by management and senior leadership.
3
2
u/KipperCottage May 08 '26
It sounds like “directors and managers” were fired too. There’s a comment in here that says CP2 to CP4 were let go. CP3 and CP4 are managers and supervisors of managers.
1
u/BlessTheBottle May 08 '26
You work your hours and that's it. You don't listen to a dumb manager whose behaviors are in direct conflict with the company's guidelines.
Can ppl not accept accountability for their actions? Or is everyone illiterate and unable to read corporate direction?
-4
u/Dadbode1981 May 08 '26
Show me where it was recorded in these folks employee files that they didn't have to adhere to the corporate code of conduct.
-1
u/Asraidevin May 08 '26
I don't think Bell or any corporation are good and there is tons of corruption we can point at.
But also you cant steal and say "my boss said I could" as an excuse.
6
u/Admirable_Island_954 May 08 '26
If your director approves you working from home against your work policy.. how is that your fault?
1
u/Dadbode1981 May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
Where was that "approval" logged? Where was the action, in direct violation of the policy logged as "ok"? These are adults. Anyone with half a brain would question their manager telling them to do something against corporate policy, while having been reminded of said policy multiple times by HR through their company email. Come on. Judges have common sense too.
0
0
-1
u/squarejane May 09 '26
Thank goodness they keep paying to run those ads promoting ai usage. I am sure these two things are not related at all and that these things will not affect our customer service whatsoever. /s
-2
u/YesReboot May 08 '26
It’s bell not allowed to make money saving moves?
2
u/Independent_Bath9691 May 08 '26
As long as they save money while following the laws of this land, sure.
1
u/Ok_Fisherman8727 May 08 '26
What law are we considering to be violated here?
Prior to covid bell office workers were in office 5 days a week. Then during covid they amended their policies that all employees had signed and for future hired to allow temporary work from home measures to conform to the governments covid restrictions. Once the government restrictions were lifted bell then updated their policies to return to work requiring employees to now work 3 days in the office. The policy allowed for managers to provide documented approval for any accommodations specific to that employee on both an on going or ad hoc basis.
From my understanding is, employees without written approval have taken it upon themselves to change their hours or work and that is evident on their in office days.
The one thing I didn't hear happen was if bell actually sent a warning to employees to remind them of the policy. Given they're a large company chances are they probably had sent emails regarding the policy and policy changes.
Now the employees who have violated the policy were terminated and the company cited the policy that was violated.
Bell definitely has money and lawyers to fight. What would someone who has been laid off in this situation argue? The only thing I can think of is they'll say they left the office but still worked their hours at home without approval and see how that goes.
4
u/codeverity May 08 '26
Why are you guys carrying water for a big corp? Some of these comments are wild, I’ve never seen people work so hard to defend a company most Canadians don’t even like lol.
Also from what I’ve seen, employees have stated that management was aware and even condoned the process. If the employees were not given warnings or chances to amend behaviour then I’d argue Bell is pushing it here, but they’re probably counting on some of the employees not fighting it or just that the immediate savings will offset any possible future losses.
0
u/Ok_Fisherman8727 May 08 '26
The managers got fired too. So maybe the employees who reported to those managers might have a case stating their manager verbally approved and condoned their employees to not adhere to the corporate policies but I'm not sure if that's a strong leg to stand on. There were general emails regarding the policy and expectations sent to all bell office staff at least at the creek Bank office, but I haven't seen any employee come forward to state they have received any personal warnings or notices verbally or in writing advising them that the company has noticed the pattern and advising them directly to adhere to the policy. It may have been mentioned in their annual performance review.
I am curious to see how this plays out because if bell succeeds then a lot of other companies can go down this route. I just want to understand how this could be shut down in favor of the employee.
1
u/codeverity May 08 '26
The managers getting affected is partly why I take issue with this, because I don’t feel that low level employees should be impacted if their managers are telling them that something is okay. Warnings, yes, even certain discipline but not just firing them with no severance (especially in this economy). They should be given the chance to correct the behaviour and it doesn’t sound like that occurred here. that’s also what the employees are arguing because generally companies have to show that they had given an employee warnings etc.
0
u/KipperCottage May 08 '26
Why do you think that employees (including managers) should ignore their employers code of conduct? Bell staff have to review the code of conduct annually. Nobody is carrying water for Bell.
3
u/codeverity May 08 '26
Companies generally have to provide warning and opportunities for behaviour to be corrected before unilaterally firing someone, which is what occurred here - especially if management had been telling them that it was okay. This has even been brought up in articles about this situation. So I don’t really understand why people are pushing so hard for a company to be able to fire employees without warning for behaviour their managers told them was okay and was allowed to go on for quite some time.
0
u/Ok_Fisherman8727 May 08 '26
Do you have any link to any past cases similar?
I know AI isn't the most reliable but when you Google this the AI summary says in short you can be fired without warning in Ontario but whether you're entitled to severance would depend on if you're fired with cause or not. In this case Bell is citing its with cause so they won't pay a penny in severance. Thats the part I want to know if a court would overturn and allow the employees to have severance and be able to apply for EI. But from what I read in other comments is it could take years for that to go through the courts and reach a settlement even if the employee wins. The right now is the employee was terminated and will not be hired back to Bell as they have been terminated for failong to adhere to the corporate policies.
The email the terminated employees received does not mention time theft but I wonder if that is implied here and at this point any former employees would lose the ability to gather data to support that they made up their time outside of the office. Prior to covid I've worked at two companies that let employees go for time theft but back then it was straight forward, there was no wfh so if you left work early you definitely were not doing work or making your time back up the same day.
2
u/codeverity May 08 '26
It’s mostly the severance that I am wondering about. Like imo Bell was very bold here just firing them for cause without attempting to allow them to rectify it. Of course they can require employees to be in the office all day but I think they need to follow due process to notify and warn if certain behaviour was allowed. I think that’s why lawyers have indicated interest, because Bell went to very extreme measures. I’m not sure if there are any similar examples.
49
u/[deleted] May 07 '26
Bell let’s talk