As Canada navigates a shift back to traditional workspace norms, return-to-office mandates are emerging as a source of tension between employees and employers. The hybrid work model, which gained traction during the COVID-19 pandemic, is now being redefined as many large financial firms, including major banks, announce plans to require employees to work in the office for four days a week starting this fall. The current labor market trends illustrate a reversal of power dynamics, as companies exert greater control over work arrangements, leaving many employees feeling compelled to either adapt or seek new employment. Philippe de Villers from Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada highlights a more aggressive stance from employers who now perceive the economic uncertainties as a reason to enforce stricter policies.
For employees resistant to returning full-time to the office, one viable alternative is actively seeking employment at companies that offer more flexible work arrangements. Experts like Sunira Chaudhri from Workly Law note that many employees facing rigid mandates are inclined to explore other job opportunities that align better with their preferences. The inclination to change jobs has become particularly pronounced in enterprise-level companies, such as banks and accounting firms, which are prioritizing in-office collaboration, while smaller businesses appear more hesitant to embrace similar mandates.
Family responsibilities play a crucial role in the discourse surrounding return-to-office policies. Employees with children or other caregiving duties may require specific accommodations, as Chaudhri points out. Employers must be cautious not to overlook these family needs—especially since rigid office attendance can complicate an employee’s daily routine and childcare arrangements. For instance, an employee who needs to pick up a child from daycare may struggle to meet the demands imposed by a four-day-a-week in-office mandate, necessitating potential accommodations.
Moreover, medical needs are another crucial consideration for many employees facing return-to-office requirements. As Chaudhri emphasizes, employers need to remain cognizant of evolving medical circumstances since the onset of the pandemic. Whether due to chronic health issues or accessibility to necessary healthcare facilities, employees may require adjustments to the return-to-work policies. Employment lawyer Jon Pinkus explains that accommodating medical needs often falls on employers, who must balance the obligation to support their employees without incurring undue hardship—a legal standard that limits the extent of required accommodations.
Legal implications surrounding remote work transitions are also significant. Employees who started working from home during the pandemic, without clear communication from their employers about the temporary nature of the arrangement, may find themselves in a precarious position. If an employer makes a sudden, enforceable request for them to return to the office, it could potentially lead to claims of breach of contract. Such legal battles are fraught with risks, as employees could face allegations of abandonment of employment if they resist the return. Therefore, experts advise employees to carefully consider their legal standing before making decisions about refusing to return to the office.
Constructive dismissal is another legal concern that may arise in these transition scenarios. Pinkus notes that if an employer alters fundamental terms of employment, like shifting an employee from a telecommuting role to a non-telecommuting role, the employee may lay claim to constructive dismissal. Successfully arguing this claim requires substantial proof, which can be challenging for employees. Chaudhri observes that many companies are gradually increasing in-office days to mitigate the risk of such claims, but the burden remains on employees to substantiate any grievances regarding significant changes to their work arrangements.
