Commonwealth_ As Canada‘s labour market starts to turn in favour of employers, return-to-office policies are increasingly prevalent, particularly in large institutions. More conventional in-office requirements are gradually replacing the hybrid work models that gained popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. This trend is notably seen in the financial industry, with many of Canada’s large banks poised to introduce four-day in-office work weeks beginning in the fall.
The mounting pressure for staff to return to the office is causing friction between bosses and workers. While many employees have grown accustomed to the ease of distant or blended work arrangements, companies are increasingly asserting their prerogatives to alter these conditions—citing financial uncertainty and a weakening employment market.
Employment law professionals observe a marked rise in the number of workers complaining about restricted remote working opportunities. In the past pandemic years, when unemployment rates were lower and the war for skills was higher, employers were more than willing to negotiate remote work requests. Currently, with the situation in their favour, employers can take firmer stands on reporting for workplaces, and quite a number of employees find themselves making hard decisions.
For employees who dislike stricter back-to-office policies, one clear option is to seek a different job. Many employees are career shifting in a bid to locate organisations with more relaxed work arrangements. The trend is highly prevalent in industries where remote working policies remain attractive in a bid to retain top talent. Alternatively, large business enterprises—particularly banks, insurance organisations, and accounting firms—are heavily tilting towards strict in-office requirements.
For employees who are not able or do not want to job change, there are limited choices. Employees can be forced to comply with their employer’s on-site requirement, except when they are eligible for a medical or family-based legal accommodation. While personal preference in and of itself is not an appropriate reason for exemption, some situations can warrant special treatment under labour laws.
One such situation is family status. Employees with child-rearing responsibilities may actually be prevented from being flexible within the office workday, especially where those responsibilities are heavily related to their being available at specific hours. An employee who must collect a child from daycare later in the afternoon, for example, would find it unrealistic to remain in an office in the downtown area until evening. In such instances, employees can ask for accommodation on their part from their employer through family status protections. Employers need to evaluate such requests seriously, and they should legally consider accommodating them where necessary.
Medical need may be invoked to support continued telecommuting. Where an employee’s health has otherwise substantially worsened prior to the pandemic and usual full-time presence in the office poses risks or challenges, employers may have an obligation to accommodate. Medical records typically support these situations, with decisions made on a case-by-case basis.
A second source of potential conflict is the legal draughting of work-from-home policies enacted throughout the pandemic. If employees began to work from home without clear notification from their employer that the arrangement was permanent, and the employer now indicates that they must go back to the office, this could be raising legal concerns over a potential breach of contract. But if the company had successfully notified that telecommuting was transient, the legal grounds for a challenge would be slimmer.
Employment lawyers warn that the neglect of back-to-office policies may have dire consequences. If the employer possesses a right in law to insist on working in the office, the employee’s act of refusal could be considered abandonment of employment. This could make the worker disqualified for severance pay along with other benefits on termination. As the balance of power in the labour market shifts, Canadian workers and employers are entering an age of bargaining on what work in the years to come will be like. While some employees may perhaps be able to negotiate for exceptions based on grounds of legal justification, others might find they are being given an ultimatum: return to the office or seek employment elsewhere
