Bell, a major Canadian corporation that owns BCE, has terminated several employees for breaching workplace attendance and remote work policies. However, allegations have surfaced claiming that the firings were unjust and aimed at avoiding severance payments. Bell’s Chief Human Resources Officer, Nikki Moffat, stated in an internal email that the terminated employees were allegedly misrepresenting their presence at work. Nevertheless, the dismissed workers have refuted these claims on social media and in discussions with CBC News.
Bell has accused some terminated employees of swiping in and leaving shortly after, but individuals contacted by CBC News, along with lawyer Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, who represents over 30 terminated Bell employees, dispute these allegations. De Bousquet mentioned that many of the terminated individuals had never worked in the office, even before the pandemic. Bell refuted claims of firing hundreds of employees, asserting that only a small number were let go. The company did not disclose specific termination figures or names of affected individuals.
According to Bell, corporate office workers were required to be in the office at least two days a week since 2022 and three days since 2023. However, De Bousquet and his clients argue against this, stating that employees who were terminated had never been obligated to work in the office before. Several employees noted that their immediate managers had approved the working arrangements for which they were dismissed.
De Bousquet highlighted that many terminated employees did not receive warnings or suspensions before being fired. He and other dismissed workers believe that Bell terminated them for financial reasons, using alleged misconduct as a pretext to avoid severance payments. Bell countered these claims, stating that the terminations were due to clear violations of the company’s code of conduct.
Bell spokesperson Luc Levasseur mentioned that managers condoning the swipe-and-go practice were also terminated. Despite denying economic motives, these terminations followed Bell Canada’s reduction of 650 management positions and 40 news division roles in late 2025. Recent financial reports show mixed results for Bell, with a decrease in profits at BCE and a rise in operating revenue driven partly by AI services.
As white-collar workers nationwide return to offices post-pandemic, Bell’s strict enforcement of attendance policies aligns with this trend. The situation has sparked discussions on work-from-home policies and employer-employee agreements. Toronto employment lawyer Sundeep Gokhale emphasized that employers typically have the authority to determine employees’ work locations, barring specific contractual provisions.
Gokhale added that firing employees for just cause, without severance, requires meeting a high bar, usually necessitating warnings and opportunities for improvement. Serious offenses like theft or fraud are often grounds for immediate termination without severance. The outcome of the Bell case will hinge on the evidence presented in each employee’s situation.