Employers Push for Return to Office: Employment Lawyer Jon Pinkus with Canadian Press

Interview Summary

Remote and hybrid work models appear to be disappearing for many employees who experienced a dramatic shift during the pandemic. Employers in various industries have mandated a complete return to the physical workplace, particularly the major banks across Canada. Do employees have any options available to refuse such a request?

Jon Pinkus, a Toronto employment lawyer and Partner at Samfiru Tumarkin LLP, spoke with Daniel Johnson at the Canadian Press to discuss the options available for employees.

Interview Notes

• Decision for many working in major banks: Pinkus noted that return-to-office mandates are particularly popular among major banks. “Return to office trends are more common with enterprise-level companies like banks and accounting firms compared with small businesses or ones in industries more concerned about retaining talent.”
• Medical accommodations: Pinkus commented that he has heard from many employees who are unable to work in the office due to medical reasons. “Employees may need accommodations for issues that may make it difficult for an employee to drive or sit for long periods. Other issues could include things like access to medication that may not be practical to bring into an office or needing to be close to a hospital or doctor,” said Pinkus. “You do have an obligation as an employer to accommodate someone up to the point of what’s called undue hardship.”
• Breach of contract: “If an employee started working from home full time during the COVID-19 pandemic, and their employer didn’t communicate whether the arrangement was temporary or permanent, but is now trying to get them back into the office four days a week, it could be considered a breach of contract,” Pinkus explained.
• Note of caution to employees: Before pursuing legal action, Pinkus cautioned employees to consider their employer’s expressed intentions. “Employees considering refusing to return to the office should be “very careful” because if their employer did have the right to compel a return to the office, it could be considered abandonment of employment — meaning the worker is not entitled to severance pay.”
• Constructive dismissal: Pinkus explained that employees could pursue a constructive dismissal if the fundamental terms of their employment had been changed with this mandate.  “There is precedent for the notion that an employer can’t simply take someone from a telecommuting role and put them in a non-telecommuting role without their permission.”

Related Resources

For further insights and discussions related to employee rights, explore the following resource:

• Ford Motor Company pushes for a return to office