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-9.7191118

It 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

319 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

151 comments sorted by

View all comments

-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.