BCE Inc., the parent company of Bell Canada, has recently terminated a small number of employees for violating its code of conduct. This action stems from cases of intentional workplace attendance falsification.
BCE’s Attendance Violations Investigation
After conducting an internal review, BCE discovered that some employees were using key cards to register attendance. These individuals would swipe in and then exit the premises almost immediately. This behavior, referred to as “swipe and go,” was prevalent across various offices nationwide.
Cases of Falsification
- One employee swiped their card just before midnight, only to swipe again shortly after, falsely indicating attendance for two consecutive days.
- Another instance involved an individual using workplace fitness facilities before leaving the office.
A spokesperson for Bell, Luc Levasseur, confirmed that there were thorough investigations in each case. Most individuals admitted to the deliberate and repeated falsification of workplace attendance.
No Unionized Employees Affected
Levasseur emphasized that the terminations did not impact any unionized workers. He also clarified that BCE is not implementing any broader workforce reduction strategy.
Return-to-Office Policies
BCE maintains a three-day in-office policy for most corporate employees. In contrast, many companies, including the federal government, recently mandated a return to the office five days a week. Federal service executives returned to full-time office work on Monday, while other employees were required to be in-office four days a week.
Legal Implications of Termination
Employment law firm Samfiru Tumarkin LLP has reported being contacted by several former Bell employees claiming they were dismissed for “coffee badging” or “badge in and bounce” practices. Spokesperson Ryan Bonnar indicated that many believed this behavior was culturally accepted, particularly as they met work targets.
BCE has classified these terminations as “for cause.” Such dismissals are generally rare in Canadian employment law. Tara Vasdani, an employment lawyer, notes that “for cause” dismissals can result in severe consequences for employees, including the loss of severance pay.
Judicial Precedents
Traditionally, courts treat “for cause” dismissals seriously, often relating to misconduct such as theft or fraud. Immediate terminations have been permitted without prior warnings for these offenses. However, legal professionals, like Samfiru Tumarkin’s Teilen Celentano, indicate that employers typically must provide warning before enacting serious terminations.
This evolving situation presents challenges regarding management’s role and the cultural acceptance of attendance policies. It raises questions about the legal grounds for challenging dismissals based on manager condonation of such behaviors.
