Bell Canada Swipe and Go: Were These Firings Legal?

BCE Inc. has fired a number of employees it says deliberately falsified workplace attendance records. But terminated workers are disputing those claims, and the legal picture is far more complicated than Bell's public statements suggest.

If you were terminated in connection with Bell's attendance policy, here is what you need to know before you accept any outcome or sign any document.

What happened

Bell Canada's parent company BCE Inc. terminated what it described as a small number of employees for allegedly violating its code of conduct by intentionally and repeatedly falsifying workplace attendance. In an email to employees obtained by CBC News, Bell's chief human resources officer Nikki Moffat said terminated employees were "misrepresenting their presence in the workplace." (CBC News, The Globe and Mail)

According to Bell, the conduct included employees swiping in with their key cards and then immediately leaving the premises, a practice the company has called "swipe and go." Alleged incidents occurred in offices across the country and included one case in which an employee swiped just before midnight and again shortly after to suggest two consecutive days in the office. (The Globe and Mail)

Bell spokesperson Luc Levasseur said managers who condoned the behaviour were also investigated and fired, and that in each case there was a thorough investigation with employees presented with clear evidence of their misconduct. (CBC News)

Terminated employees are disputing Bell's account

A number of terminated employees have publicly disputed Bell's characterization of events. Multiple employees told CBC News that not only were they never required to work in the office under strict policies before, but their immediate managers had explicitly approved the very working arrangements they were terminated for. (CBC News)

Some workers say they were hired years ago and never worked from a Bell office, and that Bell's in-office requirements represented a unilateral change to their employment terms they had never agreed to. Several affected employees also stated they were not given warnings or the opportunity to correct their behaviour before being dismissed outright. (CBC News)

What "for cause" actually means under Canadian employment law

Bell is treating these dismissals as terminations for cause, which means the affected employees would receive no severance. In Canadian employment law, for cause termination is considered a high bar. Courts have described it as the "capital punishment of employment law" because of how seriously it affects an employee's financial entitlements.

Serious misconduct such as theft, fraud, or the deliberate falsification of records can meet the threshold for just cause. However, whether that threshold is met in any individual case depends on the specific facts, including whether expectations were clearly communicated, whether policies were enforced consistently, and whether the employee was warned before being dismissed.

What Christopher Achkar says

Why manager approval changes everything

One of the most legally significant aspects of this situation is the allegation that managers actively approved or condoned the very behaviour employees are now being fired for. In employment law, if an employer or its representatives were aware of conduct and did not discipline or correct it, that can amount to condonation. Where condonation exists, an employer may lose the ability to rely on that conduct as grounds for dismissal.

The question of whether Bell's managers condoned swipe and go behaviour, and whether those managers had the authority to do so, is likely to be a central issue in any legal proceedings that follow. (CBC News)

The severance question

If Bell cannot establish just cause for these dismissals, the affected employees would be entitled to termination pay and potentially significant severance under common law. Given that some of the affected workers are reported to have many years of service, that entitlement could be substantial.

Some terminated employees and their representatives have suggested the for cause classification was used to avoid paying severance rather than because the conduct genuinely met the legal threshold. Bell has denied this characterization. (CBC News)

Key questions every affected employee should ask

Frequently asked questions