In a decisive move, BCE Inc., the parent company of Bell Canada, has terminated a select group of employees for breaching the company’s code of conduct by deliberately and repeatedly falsifying their attendance records. An internal investigation revealed that these employees engaged in what has been termed “swipe and go” behaviour, where they would enter the office, swipe their key cards to record attendance, and then promptly leave the premises.
Investigation Reveals Widespread Misconduct
The company’s internal review uncovered multiple instances of this misconduct occurring across several offices nationwide. In one notable case, an employee swiped their card just before midnight and again shortly after, effectively signalling to the attendance system that they had been present for two consecutive days. Another incident involved an employee using the office fitness facilities before exiting without fulfilling their work obligations.
Luc Levasseur, a spokesperson for Bell, stated, “In each case, there was a thorough investigation, and individuals were presented with clear evidence of their misconduct.” He noted that most of those involved admitted to the intentional falsification of their attendance records. Importantly, he confirmed that these terminations did not affect any unionised staff members.
No Broader Workforce Reductions Planned
Levasseur further clarified that there is currently no overarching workforce reduction initiative underway at Bell. Despite this, the company has maintained a three-day in-office work policy for the majority of its corporate employees. This comes at a time when many other organisations, including the federal government, have reinstated stricter attendance requirements, mandating employees return to the office five days a week. On Monday, federal employees returned to the office full-time, while other staff members are now required to work on-site four days a week.
Legal Perspective on Employment Dismissals
In response to the terminations, employment law firm Samfiru Tumarkin LLP has been approached by several former Bell employees, some with significant tenures at the company. These individuals allege that they were dismissed for what is colloquially known as “coffee badging” or “badge in and bounce” practices. Ryan Bonnar, a spokesperson for the firm, indicated that many believed this behaviour was tacitly approved by management. “The message we’re hearing in some cases is that this wasn’t a secret – it was a workplace culture often encouraged by their own managers,” he wrote in an email.
According to Bell, the terminations are categorised as “for cause.” In Canadian employment law, such dismissals are relatively rare due to the serious implications they carry for employees, including the forfeiture of severance rights. Tara Vasdani, managing partner at Remote Law Canada, explained that courts typically reserve “for cause” findings for severe misconduct such as theft or fraud. However, she acknowledged that each case is highly specific and dependent on the clarity of communicated expectations and the consistency of policy enforcement across the workforce.
Teilen Celentano, an employment lawyer with Samfiru Tumarkin, added that companies generally need to issue warnings before terminating an employee for cause, given the gravity of such a decision. He noted that the legal landscape regarding these types of dismissals is evolving, particularly as more employers enforce return-to-office policies. A significant challenge lies in demonstrating the extent to which management condoned behaviours like “swipe and go,” which could affect an employee’s ability to contest their termination.
Why it Matters
The actions taken by BCE Inc. underscore the increasingly stringent expectations companies have regarding employee attendance and accountability in the wake of widespread remote work. As organisations navigate the complexities of hybrid work models and return-to-office strategies, the implications of such dismissals will likely ripple across the corporate landscape, prompting employees to reassess their understanding of workplace policies. This situation serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of clear communication and the potential consequences of oversights in professional conduct, especially during a period of transition in workplace norms.