Canadian telecommunications giant BCE, the parent company of Bell, has terminated several employees for breaching workplace attendance and remote work policies. However, allegations have surfaced that these dismissals were unjust and aimed at avoiding severance payments, as reported by CBC News.
In a communication to staff obtained by CBC News, Bell’s Chief Human Resources Officer Nikki Moffat mentioned that fired employees were allegedly misrepresenting their presence at work. This claim has been challenged by terminated workers on social media and in discussions with CBC News.
Apart from accusations of deceptive workplace presence, Bell has accused some terminated employees of swiping in and leaving shortly afterward, according to Moffat’s email. Nevertheless, workers in contact with CBC News and lawyer Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, who represents over 30 terminated Bell employees, refute these allegations.
De Bousquet stated that many of the terminated individuals had never physically worked in the office, even pre-pandemic. He revealed that he has been approached by more than 30 fired Bell employees and believes there could be hundreds affected.
Bell responded to the claims, stating that the assertion of hundreds of terminations is inaccurate, without specifying the exact number of dismissals. The company maintained that only a “small number” of employees were let go.
The company’s policy required corporate office staff to be present in the office at least two days a week since 2022, increasing to three days weekly from 2023. However, De Bousquet and his clients contest this policy change, claiming it was unilaterally imposed by Bell without employee agreement.
According to De Bousquet, many of his clients were terminated without prior warnings or suspensions. He and the terminated workers believe that Bell fired them for financial reasons, using misconduct claims to avoid paying severance.
Bell countered these allegations, asserting that the terminations were due to “clear violations” of the company’s code of conduct. Bell spokesperson Luc Levasseur highlighted that managers condoning the swipe-and-go practice were also investigated and dismissed.
Despite Bell’s denial of economic motives for the terminations, these events occurred following the company’s layoffs of 650 managerial positions and 40 news division roles in late 2025, aimed at debt reduction and growth. Recent financial reports indicate a mixed performance for Bell, with a rise in operating revenue attributed to AI services but declines in traditional services like phone and TV.
The enforcement of attendance policies by Bell coincides with the return of white-collar workers to offices nationwide post-pandemic. Public servants in various provinces and sectors have transitioned back to in-office work, reflecting a broader trend in Canada.
Toronto employment lawyer Sundeep Gokhale highlighted the sensitivity of disputes over work-from-home policies, emphasizing that employers generally have the authority to determine employees’ work locations. He noted that firing employees for just cause, with immediate termination and no severance pay, is a stringent legal standard.
Gokhale clarified that courts consider serious offenses like theft, fraud, or falsifying records as meeting the criteria for just cause terminations. The situation involving Bell and its fired employees is expected to hinge on the specific evidence in each individual case.
