Columns/Blogs Employee Experience Working Remotely
Considerations to get your return to in-person policies right

Many Canadian employers have a negative sentiment toward remote work. They want employees back, believing their office presence will translate to higher productivity, more dynamic corporate culture and more seamless collaboration.

After years of unsuccessful attempts to get full-time staff to return to the office, employers are finally getting their way. More private enterprises and government agencies have implemented return-to-office policies with teeth, prompting mixed reactions from remote workers.

Corporate middle ground

You need to meet remote workers halfway if you want more staff presence in the office. Strong-arming workers to commute and work rigid shifts immediately may inspire backlash. Blatant anti-remote work policies can also negatively affect talent attraction and retention.

Discerning business leaders have embraced hybrid arrangements to encourage their telecommuters on staff to spend about three days weekly in the office. Remote workers have responded positively, driving down the number of labour force members aged 15-69 working exclusively from home to drop from 24.3 per cent to 12.6 per cent between January 2022 and November 2023.

Obstruction to collaboration

A Cisco survey conducted in January and February involving 500 Canadian employees revealed that 64 per cent of respondents support corporate mandates to return to the office. However, only 40 per cent say their workplaces have satisfactory designs. Eighty-three percent of organizations still dedicate half of their space to individual workstations, which don’t support the main motivations of remote workers for returning — collaboration, ideation, and socialization.

The poll’s findings should be eye-opening for C-suite executives who prefer their teams to be in-house instead of remote. You would have egg on your face if you required your staff to return to the office without innovating or redesigning your space to make it conducive to modern working requirements.

Distrust and skepticism

Pro-worker groups believe some employers’ true intentions in pushing return-to-work policies are disingenuous. For example, the United Steelworkers (USW) has accused Telus of committing backdoor termination. The telecommunications giant closed its Barrie location and told 150 unionized call centre agents — who had been working remotely since the pandemic — to move from Ontario to Montreal to report for work or be terminated with a severance package.

North America’s largest private sector union believes Telus knew many of these employees wouldn’t be able to uproot their families to another province. USW suspects the company used its return-to-office demand as cover to let dozens of workers go and ultimately reduce its payroll costs.

Considering how easy it is to automate processes and reduce human error to improve operational efficiency with modern technology, the union felt Telus had an ulterior motive for subjecting its Ontario employees to this unreasonable mandate. After all, the company’s chief technology officer shared in June that generative AI was now powering the company’s on-site troubleshooting tool for customers.

Confusion regarding relocation

Moving out of the city and into less densely populated towns with a cheaper cost of living was a trend during the pandemic. The remote workers who took this path often fall through the cracks when their employers implement return-to-office initiatives.

Some employees have started a new life in another province, while others have embraced digital nomadism. A July poll by Rogers Communications found that two-thirds of Canadian hybrid workers have worked in a cottage or a city they don’t live in without telling their colleagues. They use filters to obscure their background, disguising that they aren’t home.

Regardless of where your remote workers actually live, it is paramount to consider their living situation when asking them to return. Relocating near your office’s physical location is a big ask since moving is a highly disruptive and financially burdensome endeavour.

Terminating remote employees who can’t move in time can have costly consequences for your enterprise. You may owe them severance pay when you cut ties with them, so explore the legal ramifications of forcing them to report to work in person.

Exceptions to the rule

Remote work has levelled the playing field for people with disabilities. Physical limitations became less of a factor in performing professional duties when everyone was working from home.

Being required to show up in person for work multiple days a week can cause undue hardship, negatively impacting job performance for people with disabilities. And the optics of firing them when they can’t report for duty would be bad, even if you’re not breaking any laws.

The same goes for immunocompromised individuals or for those who live with relatives at high risk of contracting COVID-19 and other infectious illnesses.

The Octapharma Canada case should serve as a reminder not to discriminate against such remote workers. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ordered the pharmaceutical company to pay nearly $105,000 for terminating a former health sales representative who refused to resume in-office work to limit her exposure to the coronavirus and protect her cancer-stricken mother.

Implement an in-office working model with prudence

Responsible employers craft return-to-office policies with fairness in mind. Forcing remote workers to comply while disregarding their unique needs is a disaster that has already happened for some organizations, so learn from their mistakes to create a win-win situation for all parties involved.

Mia Barnes is the editor-in-chief at Body+Mind.