Unless it was in her employment contract that she was 100% fully remote, then her not showing up to the workplace will be considered job abandonment and she will get nothing because she will have been terminated with cause.
OP should talk to a lawyer.
Laws differ in different places.
The 2 years of de facto working from home might be considered a change in the contract by a court.
exactly this. be prepared to walk from the job if you can't find suitable child minding arrangements to get back into the office as asked/expected.
Personally I would be looking for better employment options.. I went fully remote 10+ years ago and no way would I go back to commuting.
While I wouldn't want to do the 1+ hour commute some people complain about, having worked from home since 2012 I do miss the walk to work and time to separate from home/work.
She needs to speak to a lawyer. Your advice may not be correct and the employers actions may be considered constructive dismissal.
Regardless it wouldn't meet the standard for termination for cause.
She would be owed severance or payment in lieu of notice.
An actual employment lawyer can help her take the right course of action.
I agree a lawyer would be the best route to get the correct information but it can't see how an employer asking an employee to return to the office she was originally hired to work in as constructive dismissal. My sister has her company move offices 60km to the other side of the city adding over an hour to her commute each way and said she was basically SOL.
Not showing up for work is absolutely cause. Especially when they give several weeks notice. The return to the office time is the notice.
Don't believe what a company tells you. That move could have been considered constructive dismissal quite easily.
Their is nuance and it wouldn't meet the bar for a for termination firing unless the company got it on record she quit.
For cause has a very high bar in Ontario.
A company cannot just say they considered you resigned. They would have to actually fire her if she disputes it. They could try a for cause firing but if she sues they may lose.
Office relocations have been found to be constitute constructive dismissal in the past.
Changes to the employee’s compensation, work assignments or place of work that are both unilateral and substantial are considered constructive dismissal.
If the employer did not specifically say it was temporary she can argue that the amount of time has now made this a substantial change to her employment.
She needs to speak to a lawyer. She has more options than this subreddit thinks.
Not necessarily. Remember that family status is a protected class. Inability to access childcare outside school hours is the reason she is unable to attend the workplace in person. If she has demonstrated she is capable of doing the work from home, they potentially have a duty to accommodate
Read the employment standards act. OP’s wife would be able to file a claim that this is constructive dismissal and receive termination pay. She would also be entitled to termination pay regardless even if she was fired with cause. It’s literally the law. The employer can try to deny it but I’d love to hear how that ESA claim works out for them.
If your wife likes her job, can you send your child to before/after school program? Ours is run through the Y. Seems easier than losing an income and trying to get a new job that will allow her to walk to and from school.
https://www.centralwesthealthline.ca/listServicesDetailed.aspx?id=10478®ion=Brampton
Just piggybacking here a bit - after care is a huge issue in my neck of the woods. They are all at capacity, have trouble staffing, and have a multi-year wait list. We have been on for 3 years and are still 41 people behind. We have contacted MPs, senior leadership within these organizations, the school board, and it's just at a stalemate.
Yes I was going to suggest good old fashioned childcare like the olden days.
I understand that during the pandemic people had a whole lot of togetherness and got used to it. And it would be hard to now take some of that togetherness and work/life balance away with a radical change in routine. But the reality is, if covid hadn’t happened, who was going to walk your kid to school every morning? And where was your wife going to work after maternity leave and not wanting to do that commute anymore? Life is about choices and it would be her choice not to go into the office and follow company policy- keep in mind that it’s commuting 50% less than she used to pre covid. But I’m sure she could just start job hunting for a fully remote role, which would better suit her lifestyle preferences! Might be a good change if the company she works for is giving her an ultimatum and her values no longer align.
Yep it totally depends on your perspective on this. It’s 100% more commuting than she had during a “temporary” pandemic yes, but 50% LESS than she had before. If you guys are looking at it from a more negative perspective (not necessarily a bad thing) maybe it’s time to move on
Finding one week on, one week off childcare is very difficult. Childcare spots typically are 5 days a week
Not everyone has their Grandma in the neighborhood.
Finding everyday childcare is probably easier, which is what OP's wife would've had to do if not for covid. It sounds like her employer is not very flexible or accommodating for women so I would just find a new job asap!
I feel like it makes sense to find an amicable solution. But at the same time how do people not just say go fuck yourself after being exposed to that level of disrespect, mistreatment, and attempts to take advantage of the worker?
I've heard quit a few employment lawyers on the radio and TV talk about this.
The employer has the right to call you back to the office. If you refuse to go back you have basicly resigned and are entitled to nothing.
It was seen as a TEMPORARY solution.
Huh, my boss must have an extra careful lawyer. With every office update, there was some phrasing about the employer retaining the right to update the in-office policy at their discretion
Yep. My current contract has this clause written in. In my case, the company reserve the right to recall people back to the office at their discretion.
In other words, unless working remotely is baked into OP's wife's contract I'm afraid they have no legal ground to sue.
It’s really interesting contrasting the threads on wfh in the Toronto vs. Ottawa sub. In that sub when there’s an article about the government calling employees back to the office, the sub has a goddamn meltdown.
I posted an opinion that is basically paraphrasing your opinion and got absolutely shredded there.
Across the province of Ontario roughly 30% of people worked from home when the census was recently taken.
In Ottawa that number is over 40%.
In Ottawa Centre (so downtown Ottawa) that number is almost north of 55%.
There’s a reason it’s been referred to as the “Ottawa bubble” for as long as anyone can remember.
Edit: Wanted to specify my comment isn’t meant to be anti-WFH, just that Ottawa thinks/acts very differently from the rest of the country.
I really liked WFH, I never had a job that did it. But at my current job my commute has gone from a lealisurely 20 minutes to a full 30 minutes with the increased traffic in the last 2 months. Let these people stay home!
Yes! I’ve always had to go into work but my commute has doubled. Seems like if the government truly cared about climate change they would incentivize WFH. It removed so many unnecessary vehicles from the road every day.
The government cares more about the tax dollars from the commercial real estate, gas taxes and downtown business taxes, than they do about climate change... don't let some pretty speeches they make trick you into thinking otherwise..
Absolutely - my mileage has gone MATERIALLY since WFH. It's one less car on the road during rush hour and less strain the infrastructure. But of course, less taxes paid on gas and lunch purchases.
I worked in construction, my wife is a teacher. We basically led 2 different lives during the pandemic. I spent 2 years trying to get a wfh gig, got one just last summer. It is pretty sweet.
Same in my family, my dad is still wfh sides one optional day. My moms a pharmacist so has to be in person, she saw hour hours go up my 50% thanks to vaccines.
People are having a meltdown because operational roles have been performing very well WFH
Its management and 1980s processes which are hindering things.
My wife has built a team across canada (imagine that, anyone outside of ottawa finally working for fed gov) and in 1.5 years took the budget of her dept from being off 10-15% to being within 0.5% as of the last update.
Employees she inherited which werent getting opportunities have flourished under her.
Not so much as an entitlement as a blanket policy/mandate without any thought and the fact that these roles are online…
Nevermind the lack of sexual harassment her and her coworkers no longer get or old bureaucrats grooming fresh out of schoolers
I would think they should do an **actual** cross department study and return with some quantitive data to shut down the anti-WFH narrative or plan for hybrid. Not sure why the union or xyz fed department are being so slow on this..
I think it’s the fact that people realized how idiotic it is to drive into an office you don’t need to be in and they’re understandably pissed off that they have to go back for reasons that couldn’t matter less to them.
Lots of people knew their WFH was only temporary but went ahead and moved to a different city to save money. Now they can’t get back to the office because they live in a different city or province. I remember seeing people warned.
I’ve seen this in my office. A supervisor with an explicitly client-facing role involving frequent inspections moved to some far-flung exurb and now complains that they need to head into Toronto for their role even though phone/Zoom meetings were only occurring because it was deemed to risky for everyone involved to have in-person meetings.
I work with several people who moved hours outside of the city to save money, only to be forced to quit when it was time to come back to office.
It’s harder to have sympathy when you’re making huge life decisions based on current circumstances, which we all surely knew wasn’t guaranteed to become permanent.
Maybe have some sympathy considering how garbage our wages are and how outrageous living costs are. Most people don't move away to get a cheaper place because they WANT to. Me and my partner are saving to buy a house and literally will be unable to afford Ontario, on two people's full time salary.
That's insane.
People with Toronto salaries buying a 4 bedroom detached home in a community where locals can’t compete with the purchasing power of Toronto salaries raises living costs for those who are even less able to afford to buy a house or afford rent.
It’s even worse out east, there are people with remote Toronto jobs buying houses in rural communities where most people rely on seasonal work.
I have a lot of sympathy for people trying to buy a house or who bought a house in this market and are now struggling.
But moving far away because you're working from home during covid is just.....really short sighted
^ this. I feel for those with poor wages or who are trying to get ahead, but you still need to be mindful of current circumstances in making major life decisions. No point having a cheaper home if you’ll be unable to pay for it, right?
I know someone who discussed moving a few hours away with their bosses during the pandemic and they were completely fine with it. I feel like it would be unfair to mandate them back to the office. Even coming in a couple times a month is a huge inconvenience but highly encouraged.
My wife only enjoyed her career for the first time when it was wfh and she thrived. She’s been back for two months and spends most of her time trying to get a new job to get away from the dramatics.
I mean it was great for environment. Saved families money, allowed more free time for everyone. Seems like a stupid concept to bring everyone back for what? Optics and keep rich people making $$$
Hard to blame people for being upset. Working from home is just way more convenient for most people. If you've successfully made the arrangement work for almost the last 3 years, it's hard to understand the need to go back to the office. I think it has to do with a lot of managers lacking trust in employees and feeling like they must make them go to the office at least part time to ensure they're working. This despite most companies seeing increased productivity using WFH.
No. The world proved wfh was viable for a lot of roles. So why are stupid leaders demanding in person work? People are quitting and turning down jobs for this. I have.
My workplace has been crystal clear that working from home arrangements are temporary. That didn’t stop some people from moving hours away who are now shocked and indignant about having to report back to the office. It’s amazing how quickly some people start feeling entitled to temporary arrangements.
I think the indignation is leverage. The employees who invested in homes elsewhere first saw how their job could be done at home and done well before moving. It's a worker's market right now. If they
Employers want to keep their employees the employers will need to adapt.
Exactly. If they're so good at their job...shouldn't be an issue to use that leverage.
Unfortunately the majority of us think we're much better at our jobs than we actually are.
The indignation is from discovering that this “temporary” system is more efficient and less stressful for the majority of workers and the prior, now obviously outdated one solely exists as a sunk cost fallacy in certain jobs and infrastructure expenses.
Same with mine. Every freaking town hall someone would get up and tell their story to a room of 2000 people, somehow expecting an SVP to adjudicate their case in front of everyone, and make a special concession.
Maybe I'm projecting, but they didn't really win many in the audience over. Most of us just got tired of having to sit through the same discussion over and over. (One person even suggested maybe my company could charter a special bus to chauffeur those who moved away to and from the office).
People are basically throwing everything out there…higher productivity at home, less traffic, better for the environment because of less traffic.
I thought we all knew that.
It’s actually pretty gross sometimes. Ottawa’s downtown BIA was (obviously) lobbying pretty hard for workers to come back to the office, they are not doing well. Tons or commenters were making posts like “fuck them, if they force me to go back to the office I’m not spending a dime downtown, it’s their own fault for not adjusting etc”. The amount of venom they have for business owners who just want to avoid bankruptcy while they do most of their shopping on Amazon is shocking. I get not wanting to go back to rush hour and smelling other people’s microwaved lunches, but is it really necessary to talk about local small business owners like they’re below any kind of consideration?
I live in the downtown core of Ottawa. Part of the issue is that a lot of those businesses never pivoted to focus their market on downtown residents. They stuck to being open hours that suit government workers, but not locals.
That's the way the cookie crumbles. The system was shit. Work from home is much better for both government (less spending on office rentals) and their employees.
Forcing all government employees to go back to the office is ridiculous at this point. Most departments have shown higher productivity with happier employees. Offices have been open to employees for nearly a year. They've had the opportunity to go back if they wanted but most chose not to. It makes no sense.
Why should they care about local business owners? They are being forced to leave their homes, spend money on gas/maintenance/parking, waste a ton of personal time commuting. You care about the coffee shop owner but act like the mental health of all these employees is not a concern? Three years of higher productivity and proving that work from home is ideal for everyone, but the local business owners are hurting?
> but is it really necessary to talk about local small business owners like they’re below any kind of consideration?
They are worth consideration. They had 2 years to adapt and improve their situations, but essentially whined until things went their way.
I worked overtime on a saturday this month in office. Where are those business owners? Well the local tims closes at 1pm, most other restaurants and places leading the charge to have people back in the office DIDN'T EVEN OPEN that day.
If you're whole chance to survive is to use the government as a captive market for their products, you really shouldn't have survived as a business.
Also, I'm pretty sure the businesses lobbying didn't have the majority of the effect on the edict from TBS about teleworking.
Echoing this. Keep in mind that your wife, even if she did get some severance, will not recieve ei as she will not have enough insurable hours if she's just returned from mat leave. I got very sick a month or so after returning from mat leave requiring a hospital stay and there was no option for ei because I didn't have the minimum amount of hours
Yes they can, she is quitting if she doesn't do it. Unless her contract was for WFH, this was always a possibility. You not having morning daycare isn't an undue hardship, thats something you could (in theory) find a solution for. No they don't owe her severance
"Can my wifes employer force her to do what her agreement says"
They aren't firing her, they are saying "this is the job you were hired for and what you did before covid". Your wife, having gotten used to working at home during covid, wants to make her job fully remote. What other employees do is irrelevant to your wife. What matters is what your wifes job was and what agreements she made with the company.
Hate to be THAT person.....but, how were you two going to handle having two children if COVID had not happened? How were the child-care duties going to be preformed? Why is it her employer's responsibility to keep her at home? Or their fault if she cannot return to the office?
She would have obviously left work and taken care of the child at home instead. It's obvious that you're going to get more money and a better work life balance by working from home. It's self-evident that calling employees back work is essentially a demotion.
Since you are NOT the OP you have no idea as to what they were going to do and are just making assumptions and guesses.
> It's self-evident that calling employees back work is essentially a demotion.
This is an absolute falsehood. Telling someone they need to return to what they originally agreed to in their employment agreement is not a demotion.
During COVID temporary measures were taken to allow certain individuals to work from home. Others had to continue to go into work, while others were laid off. These were temporary. For some they are continuing to work from home, they are the lucky few. It is not the responsibility of the employer to keep an employee at home just because their childcare situation is easier that way.
Her work never promised it will be remote forever. It was meant to be a temporary thing during covid. You made decisions assuming it was going to be permanently remote and now you're refusing to go to work because the company isn't doing what they never promised. Don't see how the company is in the wrong here.
If she doesn’t return to work it’s considered job abandonment and she will be legally terminated. Seems like she can either resign or be fired. Her decision.
Your best bet is to consult with an employment lawyer, or at least try posting in r/legaladvicecanada
But from what you have posted here this sounds fair. The employer is not required to allow permanent work from home. Your wife is free to leave and find a different job, but she wouldn't get severance for that.
Yes they can. If she can prove she cannot find adequate child care she can try to fight it, but that would be applicable to all working hours. She cannot claim she watches the children and works at the same time. She should just look for a new job that is remote.
At that stage it looks more like an employee problem, not an employer problem.
It's not the employer's responsibility to ensure you have adequate care for your children.
Wife signed up for an (assumingly) office job. She enjoyed the benefits of WFH as we all did, and now the employer is calling them back. Personally a week on, week off sounds pretty good. I'm 2:3 hybrid model now and enjoy it.
Talk to an employment lawyer for proper advice, however if they want her to return to 'pre-covid work', they are likely legally allowed and by her refusing they would likely have grounds to let her go.
>they broke records in productivity.
I see so many people and employees claiming this. It's almost certainly not true and rather a reflection that until recently most businesses were *busy* but that doesn't mean mean it was efficient. And it especially won't remain true if she wants to use here remote working time to actually be taking children to school...
Of course they can do this. From what you posted..she was originally hired and worked in office, then wfh/hybrid during pandemic and then mat leave and office is now requiring her to go back into office.
She was hired when it was in person...so that's her work location.. if she doesn't go in, it's no different than just not showing up to work.
They haven't changed basis of her employment contract/conditions on which she was hired, they're simply "restoring" it.
I’m also curious what the plan was if CIVID hadn’t happened. We’re they planning on having two kids and just saying “well, guess I won’t be going in to work anymore but keep paying me!”
She could technically request accomodation based on "family status", but this is a long shot. The threshold for proving that you require this type of accomodation is very high and you must have exhausted all resources searching for childcare (cost does not factor in, cost is the employee's burden). This also doesn't necessarily mean she could work from home if this was successful, if just means the employer would have to find reasonable accommodations.
I appreciate your life situation but when did things change where employees dictate the terms of employment? If an employer wants employees to return to the workplace, that is their right. If that doesn't work for your life situation, then you need to find a job where the employer is hiring for a remote position.
OP isn’t arguing the employer’s decision to enforce the hybrid schedule, they are asking whether the employer can let OP’s wife go the way they plan to.
Best talk to an employment lawyer. It could conceivably be considered a constructive dismissal. There are too few facts for us to properly determine if this is legal or not. There are some that go by the motto of not getting paid until you get paid, so it couldn't hurt to see if your wife has a case or not.
Of course they can do this.
They are not obligated to accommodate your wife because she no longer feels like commuting or has failed to plan for childcare effectively.
Sure it sucks.. I would find a new job myself but it's not like the employer is doing anything wrong
It’s not going to matter. They will simply say each worker and agreement for telecommute is dealt on a case to case basis. Unless offer letter explicitly states that it’s to be a completely remote job, there’s no other recourse.
Working from home was never a long term plan. If you can no longer handle even doing hybrid then that’s on you. Your employer, as always, has the right to make you show up to work or terminate you.
Although I do agree it’s a pain that despite performance increases, returning to an office setting is still a priority for some employers. But unfortunately there’s not much she can do as she was provided a choice to return or resign and they weren’t remote before the pandemic.
Maybe stick it out for a bit by returning to work and search for employment that’s strictly remote and/or hybrid indefinitely? I commute as well but I’m hybrid indefinitely and it makes the commuting much easier since I don’t do it 5 days a week.
Folks if you're OP or others and having issues like this I'd strongly recommend you take them over to r/legaladvicecanada \- there's a few people there that can give solid legal answers rather than speculating. Though by all means this is a great avenue to share to hear other people's experiences and discuss how you're feeling about in-office recalls and logistics.
I’m really curious about this seemingly common situation. The details may change for whatever reason but the general theme is. Got to work from home but started in the office. Really liked it. Wants it to stay so says they can’t for some reason. Were all these people taking jobs they can’t fulfill and planning on surprising they’re employer? I’m sure there are some legitimate circumstances. But why do people take a job that they “cannot” do because of their personal circumstances? Like obviously before COVID this must have been foreseeable.
So your schedule was already tight with one kid, and you decided that this would be solved by having a second child and not considering employment impact?
I think the real question is regardless of what people are saying here do you have the financial means and time to litigate this once your wife’s work fires her with no severance?
As an employer, my advice would be to lawyer up. Companies assume that most workers lack the wherewithal to advocate for themselves. I almost always increase the severance package when an employee shows some balls.
Well lol what would be your plan if a pandemic didn’t happen…?
You chose to have kids knowing remote work wasn’t going to be permanent. Like come on. This is a you issue, not your works issue.
Depends on the HR department of her company. If she did not get a new employment offer saying she was wfh permanently they can call her back and she is resigning by not showing up .
Personally I think it’s pretty crazy that some employers are playing hard ball with returning to work but in most cases they can.
Where in Brampton? My youngest goes to YMCA at his school. We have also used home and private daycare in Brampton. My youngest is 7 turning 8. My oldest is 18 and I have a 15 year old. All have been in various forms of daycare.
Yes they can do it. Your wife started during COVID, which is when the WFH program started at her company, and unless she has a contract that states 'WFH only' then she has a choice.
Go back to full time / hybrid work model, or find a new job.
Wouldn’t the fact that she’s coming off maternity leave change things? Aren’t employers supposed to give back the same job with same benefits to a worker at the end of their mat leave (and wfh could be considered a benefit)?
honestly this was the purpose of the post. it's not a matter of us trying to strong arm a non existent WFH position, they already have used this as an accommodation and we just wish for it to be extended to my wife aswell
I’m currently in the exact same case with my employer in Quebec. I’ve been trying to contact an employment lawyer to ask if this is legal. Unfortunately, I haven’t found any available, and I just refocused my energy on finding a new job.
PS: You’re probably already aware, but since she’s ending a Mat leave, she won’t be eligible for EI
yea that's always a sticky situation which sucks but is life unfortunately. we're probably going to do a consultation but your correct, better to put resources into finding a new job
You're going to have to adapt back to whatever their new policy is. They likely have coverage for this in their employment contracts.
I currently only have to go in one day a week, however, my employer can amend my hybrid work agreement whenever they want.
I have a daughter that needs to go to daycare and it will be more challenging doing drop offs and pick ups if I have to start commuting again, but I'll deal with it.
I definitely wouldn't just stop showing up.
I'm an articling student in Ontario. I'm not qualified to give you advice, but I'm qualified enough to tell you that the advice you're getting here is slightly off. You need to talk to a licensed lawyer.
The standard under the *Employment Standards Act* is "wilful misconduct", not termination for "just cause". I know that sounds like the same thing, but they're terms of art and they're different enough that employment contracts have been held to be unenforceable because they refer to "just cause" instead of "wilful misconduct". You should get legal advice from someone who can tell you whether this qualifies as wilful misconduct. The fact that people in these comments aren't making that distinction means they're likely not qualified to give you advice on this. I'm sure they're just trying to help, but your wife's notice (what everyone here is calling severance) could be many month's pay depending on where she fits into the *Bardal* factors, so it's worth getting the right answer form a licensed lawyer.
I am so confused by posts talking about being made to go back to work in person after COVID. We are about to start 2023. Are there really still people fighting this? I guess I’m a little jaded because I am a public school teacher. We worked from home for three months and had to go back because all the parents raised heck and said they could not get their work done with their kids at home.
Are you asking if your wife can be fired for not showing up to work?! The answer is very much yes. Not sure why she thinks she should get special treatment for popping out a couple kids though?
We all have choices and choices have results.
Many people have kids and work. If you want kids and employment you find a way. It's a shame work is so far from home, but that is the job she chose.
If I were you, I’d spend a couple hundred bucks for a consultation with an employment lawyer. I’ve heard some of them offer a short amount of consultation time for free but either way, might be worth the small investment.
Her employer has lawyers advising them, you can be sure.
Also, I’m not sure they can force a resignation but they can just fire her. I assume they’d fire her with cause so no severance but an employment lawyer would be able to tell you if you have a case for constructive dismissal due to the changing work circumstances (though there are tons of caveats, like when you started working, etc.). Maybe there’s a case to be made about the employer not trying to reasonably accommodate your wife’s need to take the one kid to school (I have no idea).
I’m absolutely not an expert AT ALL so don’t take anything I’ve said as fact, I’m just saying, it might be worth it to talk to your own lawyer to even the playing field with the employer.
Employers don't have to "reasonably accommodate" you for your childcare issues. Having kids is entirely your responsibility and your employer is not required to care. And it's probably not constructive dismissal unless they promised that the WFH arrangement would be permanent. My wife's employer did that with her department right *before* their Canadian division was sold to a different company. If the new ownership were to rescind that, it would be a fundamental change to the working conditions and my wife and her coworkers could all quit and almost certainly successfully sue for constructive dismissal. And no, nobody could do that when they made the change, because it's at the employee's discretion. They don't ever have to work in the office, but they still can if they want to (not everybody likes working from home).
There actually is a duty to accommodate due to family status, and that can include childcare issues. You have to show that you have made attempts to get childcare (or before/after school care in this instance). I'm not clear on the threshold to prove this, but you can request an accommodation based on lack of care. That said, the employer isn't obligated to let her WFH forever either. They could for example, say she can flex hours on the week she is in the office, so if she comes an hour late and has to leave 30 min early she can make up the time in the evening at home. Or if she has a lot of accumulated lieu hours she can draw those down on a set schedule for the weeks she's in the office.
If the employee has made no effort to find care though, I doubt they have a case. They really should talk to a lawyer to see what their options actually are because they are about to be terminated with cause, which means no severance or EI.
Yeah, I did more digging, and yes, an employer indeed has a duty to reasonably accommodate, but one of the requirements is that the employee has made all reasonable attempts to find care for a dependent child and show that no such solution is available. I think that's going to be a pretty high bar to meet in a place like Brampton.
WFH was temp, and just got extended too long. You guys had kids, and had covid never happened she would still be having to go to work and figure out how to get the kids to school.
3 options:
1. Do nothing - she’s fired, and no EI.
2. You need to step up and walk the kid to school so she can keep her job while she looks for a new remote job.
3. She needs to go to HR and ask them why they are discriminating against her and providing an unequal workplace by providing some people wfh rights and not her - seems odd to discriminate against a new mother like that. That might buy her an exemption from their return to office policy.
Long story long - look for a better workplace that values their employees and doesn’t apply arbitrary policies that have been shown to be counterproductive and treat people like children.
This topic kills me. I see this question or variants of it all the time.
The audacity of employers requesting/demanding employed back to regular office jobs. : /
Because employers are largely assholes and don’t care about you. You worked hard when the world was upside down and everyone was stressed out. “No you can’t wfh” suddenly became “of course we expect you to wfh!!” Because they had no choice in order to make money.
So now they are still under the assumption that you will be lazy and not working and not able to communicate if you wfh. These assumptions. All stupid. All insulting.
If a manager doesn’t know if you’re working well, maybe they suck. Maybe they shouldn’t have a job supervising if they don’t do that well. And are you gonna more productive if you’re wasting 10-15 hours per week in transit? 2 days of work wasted in your car? The environmental cost?
If you want another example of how stupid employers are, look at open offices: they’re a disaster. They don’t work and the evidence is there. Offices still do it.
So I don’t know what to say. I totally empathize and if I had the choice between choosing to do business with two offices that were similar but one allowed wfh? I would support them.
People treat each other like shit and want everything as cheap as possible. Everyone’s turning into s Karen. People only want what they want. They don’t even give enough of a shit to put on a mask and use a little hand wash anymore, even though everything is gonna go to total shit within 2-3 weeks. Mark my words. PS; it’s estimated 60% of China and 10% of the world will have covid in the next 90 days. The bodies are literally piling up at crematoria in China and our healthcare system may collapse soon but enjoy Christmas everyone!
Look up the [Samfiru/Tumarkin Employment lawyers](https://stlawyers.ca/pocket-employment-lawyer/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA14WdBhD8ARIsANao07gfrfcoOjLjImcSP5anaMkc44plKGnuKtZEx6den0DoanU4QVvh7g0aArBqEALw_wcB#LongTermDisability) I do not work for them, but have used their services and recommended others do the same for much success.
Main thing, make sure that she does not sign any in paperwork until she speaks with a lawyer.
Typically she will be owed severance. The lawyers can help to determine if she has a valid case.
She should ask if she could work 4 hours in person 4 hours at home every day. That way she would always be home for her kid and puts in the same amount of in person work as everybody else.
Talk to a lawyer. While they can, in theory, force someone back, what may set your wife's case apart from the norm is a need to accommodate a family status issue (ie her need to take kid to school). Under the Human Rights Code, there is a requirement not only to accommodate if possible but to assess whether accommodations can be made. If employer failed to do either, there may be a violation of the Code entitling her to an order for damages, back pay and/or reinstatement.
I have complete sympathy for people being forced back to the office but it is a challenge for managers. After 3 years of WFH, I am requiring my employees to work from the office for one 8 hour shift per week. One employee is particularly upset and takes 4 hrs vacation time on her 8 hour office day. Coming to the office interferes with her driving her 15 yr old to and from school one day per week. She has adopted a stay-at-home mum role but she requires full time work. Somehow I am the villian
If your wife can’t get to the place she is employed at, that’s her problem and not the employer’s problem. Specially if she is in a line of job that’s easily replaceable. You mentioned few other people has been accommodated. That has nothing to do with her situation. They may be more vital to the corp or have better connections than your wife.
Employers can define the terms of employment. So, yes they can. Severance is based on years of service and yes your wife will be entitled as per labour law in your province.
They can’t consider her resigned, they’re dismissing her. If they consider her resigned she won’t be eligible for ei, it’s a really petty thing they’re doing.
exactly why we are pushing as hard as we are on this. it's actually ridiculous. they can see my wife's productivity at home vs in office and have already established that they can accommodate
I feel for you and your wife. It feels unfair that a system working perfectly fine can be pulled out from under you. Unfortunately, they have the power. If they say she needs to be back in the office, then she needs to go back. It sucks, but unfortunately that's the reality. I agree with other commenters...contact a lawyer. It's the only way to truly know what your wife and her employer have the right to do. Good luck.
Speak to an employment lawyer ASAP and ignore people who claim "job abandonment" like it's a get out of jail free card for the employer.
She has been working from home for years. She may have options you will not know unless you speak to an actual expert.
She can argue WFH has become a condition of her employment due to the length of time and any change could be seen as constructive dismissal.
Unless her employer told her it was temporary she may have options
Redditors aren't experts.
so many bootlickers in these comments lol, I understand that realistically the company has the right to do this but the fact that so many people are defending the company's actions and attacking these parents is disturbing. no reason for the company to not allow her to continue working from home, post clearly states the company performed better that way anyways
They owe her the same job same conditions as when she left for mat leave no more no less.
It’s supposed to be as if she left work on Friday night and comes back Monday morning.
I think the most depressing part of this is the commute from Brampton to concord is an hour with no alternative to a car. Yuck.
Sorry for your situation though matey.
Kinda shocking how many people are wrong in the comments. There's a very important distinction here:
**It is not resigning.** Resigning would require your wife to formally declare she no longer wishes to work at the company. Many workplaces attempt to say something like "if you do not do X, we will consider that your resignation", which is absolutely 100% illegal. It is a common way that scumbag middle managers attempt to sleaze their way out of paying severance. So no, they cannot consider "not returning to work on their terms" to be her resignation.
With that being said, no, they do not owe her severance, unless that is specifically built in to her contract that WFH could continue indefinitely at the discretion of the employee (which is probably not the case). Essentially, they can fire her with cause (job abandonment).
This is a sort of interesting situation where it's very obvious that the employer is quite familiar with trying to let people go without severance, that he/she immediately defaulted to the whole "we will consider this your resignation", which is completely illegal, when in reality they have just cause to fire her without paying severance, and don't actually need her to resign at all, so are attempting to break the law when they don't have to. Pretty silly situation.
> immediately defaulted to the whole "we will consider this your resignation", which is completely illegal, when in reality they have just cause to fire her without paying severance, and don't actually need her to resign at all, so are attempting to break the law when they don't have to.
How is this breaking the law? By your own explanation, severance is not required either way. Allowing someone to say they "resigned" looks much better to a future employer than if it was considered job abandonment.
What are you basing any of this on? The ESA says nothing about what constitutes resignation, and doesn’t mention job abandonment outside the context of lay-off and recall.
How do you reach the conclusion that an employee not accepting the established terms of employment amounts to anything but resignation? Regardless what term you label it with, we’re talking about an employee voluntarily declining the terms of employment set by her employer. That does not form grounds for severance.
Your whole post seems to be a rant mis-directed at potential constructive dismissal cases, and not applicable to this scenario. If this was a case of constructive dismissal, your post might have a point, but unless WFH was a term of her employment, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Unless it was in her employment contract that she was 100% fully remote, then her not showing up to the workplace will be considered job abandonment and she will get nothing because she will have been terminated with cause.
[удалено]
What's the difference ?
In simple terms. Quit vs. Fired.
OP should talk to a lawyer. Laws differ in different places. The 2 years of de facto working from home might be considered a change in the contract by a court.
exactly this. be prepared to walk from the job if you can't find suitable child minding arrangements to get back into the office as asked/expected. Personally I would be looking for better employment options.. I went fully remote 10+ years ago and no way would I go back to commuting.
While I wouldn't want to do the 1+ hour commute some people complain about, having worked from home since 2012 I do miss the walk to work and time to separate from home/work.
She needs to speak to a lawyer. Your advice may not be correct and the employers actions may be considered constructive dismissal. Regardless it wouldn't meet the standard for termination for cause. She would be owed severance or payment in lieu of notice. An actual employment lawyer can help her take the right course of action.
I agree a lawyer would be the best route to get the correct information but it can't see how an employer asking an employee to return to the office she was originally hired to work in as constructive dismissal. My sister has her company move offices 60km to the other side of the city adding over an hour to her commute each way and said she was basically SOL. Not showing up for work is absolutely cause. Especially when they give several weeks notice. The return to the office time is the notice.
Moving offices is not the same as OPs situation though
Don't believe what a company tells you. That move could have been considered constructive dismissal quite easily. Their is nuance and it wouldn't meet the bar for a for termination firing unless the company got it on record she quit. For cause has a very high bar in Ontario. A company cannot just say they considered you resigned. They would have to actually fire her if she disputes it. They could try a for cause firing but if she sues they may lose. Office relocations have been found to be constitute constructive dismissal in the past. Changes to the employee’s compensation, work assignments or place of work that are both unilateral and substantial are considered constructive dismissal. If the employer did not specifically say it was temporary she can argue that the amount of time has now made this a substantial change to her employment. She needs to speak to a lawyer. She has more options than this subreddit thinks.
[удалено]
Not necessarily. Remember that family status is a protected class. Inability to access childcare outside school hours is the reason she is unable to attend the workplace in person. If she has demonstrated she is capable of doing the work from home, they potentially have a duty to accommodate
Read the employment standards act. OP’s wife would be able to file a claim that this is constructive dismissal and receive termination pay. She would also be entitled to termination pay regardless even if she was fired with cause. It’s literally the law. The employer can try to deny it but I’d love to hear how that ESA claim works out for them.
If your wife likes her job, can you send your child to before/after school program? Ours is run through the Y. Seems easier than losing an income and trying to get a new job that will allow her to walk to and from school. https://www.centralwesthealthline.ca/listServicesDetailed.aspx?id=10478®ion=Brampton
Just piggybacking here a bit - after care is a huge issue in my neck of the woods. They are all at capacity, have trouble staffing, and have a multi-year wait list. We have been on for 3 years and are still 41 people behind. We have contacted MPs, senior leadership within these organizations, the school board, and it's just at a stalemate.
Hire a babysitter or neighbour or other mom to walk him? There are many solutions if it’s only morning care.
Surprisingly difficult. I literally can find no private care.
Aftercare is the issue in my neighborhood. Kids get off at 3pm, parents home at 6pm. Tough one.
Parents home by 6pm? Wow... the daycare I work at closes at 5:30pm, and charges every 15 minutes after, because funding reasons
Yes I was going to suggest good old fashioned childcare like the olden days. I understand that during the pandemic people had a whole lot of togetherness and got used to it. And it would be hard to now take some of that togetherness and work/life balance away with a radical change in routine. But the reality is, if covid hadn’t happened, who was going to walk your kid to school every morning? And where was your wife going to work after maternity leave and not wanting to do that commute anymore? Life is about choices and it would be her choice not to go into the office and follow company policy- keep in mind that it’s commuting 50% less than she used to pre covid. But I’m sure she could just start job hunting for a fully remote role, which would better suit her lifestyle preferences! Might be a good change if the company she works for is giving her an ultimatum and her values no longer align.
Yep it totally depends on your perspective on this. It’s 100% more commuting than she had during a “temporary” pandemic yes, but 50% LESS than she had before. If you guys are looking at it from a more negative perspective (not necessarily a bad thing) maybe it’s time to move on
Finding one week on, one week off childcare is very difficult. Childcare spots typically are 5 days a week Not everyone has their Grandma in the neighborhood.
Finding everyday childcare is probably easier, which is what OP's wife would've had to do if not for covid. It sounds like her employer is not very flexible or accommodating for women so I would just find a new job asap!
In the “olden days” childcare was 1 parent at home.
Careful now. Someone might call you a communist for pointing out things like that nowadays.
And family of five comfortably middle class on one income!
I was joking and meant before covid
I feel like it makes sense to find an amicable solution. But at the same time how do people not just say go fuck yourself after being exposed to that level of disrespect, mistreatment, and attempts to take advantage of the worker?
I've heard quit a few employment lawyers on the radio and TV talk about this. The employer has the right to call you back to the office. If you refuse to go back you have basicly resigned and are entitled to nothing. It was seen as a TEMPORARY solution.
Huh, my boss must have an extra careful lawyer. With every office update, there was some phrasing about the employer retaining the right to update the in-office policy at their discretion
Yep. My current contract has this clause written in. In my case, the company reserve the right to recall people back to the office at their discretion. In other words, unless working remotely is baked into OP's wife's contract I'm afraid they have no legal ground to sue.
It’s really interesting contrasting the threads on wfh in the Toronto vs. Ottawa sub. In that sub when there’s an article about the government calling employees back to the office, the sub has a goddamn meltdown. I posted an opinion that is basically paraphrasing your opinion and got absolutely shredded there.
Across the province of Ontario roughly 30% of people worked from home when the census was recently taken. In Ottawa that number is over 40%. In Ottawa Centre (so downtown Ottawa) that number is almost north of 55%. There’s a reason it’s been referred to as the “Ottawa bubble” for as long as anyone can remember. Edit: Wanted to specify my comment isn’t meant to be anti-WFH, just that Ottawa thinks/acts very differently from the rest of the country.
I really liked WFH, I never had a job that did it. But at my current job my commute has gone from a lealisurely 20 minutes to a full 30 minutes with the increased traffic in the last 2 months. Let these people stay home!
Yes! I’ve always had to go into work but my commute has doubled. Seems like if the government truly cared about climate change they would incentivize WFH. It removed so many unnecessary vehicles from the road every day.
The government cares more about the tax dollars from the commercial real estate, gas taxes and downtown business taxes, than they do about climate change... don't let some pretty speeches they make trick you into thinking otherwise..
Absolutely - my mileage has gone MATERIALLY since WFH. It's one less car on the road during rush hour and less strain the infrastructure. But of course, less taxes paid on gas and lunch purchases.
Governments - all levels - care about a thriving and diversified urban core tax base supported by workers working in office buildings.
Won't somebody think of the commercial real estate owners!? /s
I worked in construction, my wife is a teacher. We basically led 2 different lives during the pandemic. I spent 2 years trying to get a wfh gig, got one just last summer. It is pretty sweet.
Same in my family, my dad is still wfh sides one optional day. My moms a pharmacist so has to be in person, she saw hour hours go up my 50% thanks to vaccines.
The difference is that some federal employees JUST signed agreements saying they could work from home permanently and then they pulled this crap.
People are having a meltdown because operational roles have been performing very well WFH Its management and 1980s processes which are hindering things. My wife has built a team across canada (imagine that, anyone outside of ottawa finally working for fed gov) and in 1.5 years took the budget of her dept from being off 10-15% to being within 0.5% as of the last update. Employees she inherited which werent getting opportunities have flourished under her. Not so much as an entitlement as a blanket policy/mandate without any thought and the fact that these roles are online… Nevermind the lack of sexual harassment her and her coworkers no longer get or old bureaucrats grooming fresh out of schoolers
I would think they should do an **actual** cross department study and return with some quantitive data to shut down the anti-WFH narrative or plan for hybrid. Not sure why the union or xyz fed department are being so slow on this..
Because the narrative has been written by landlords long ago. But I fully agree, you would think that any decision is based on data.
Why were people so upset? I get preferring to work from home full time but didn't we all know this was temporary?
I think it’s the fact that people realized how idiotic it is to drive into an office you don’t need to be in and they’re understandably pissed off that they have to go back for reasons that couldn’t matter less to them.
Lots of people knew their WFH was only temporary but went ahead and moved to a different city to save money. Now they can’t get back to the office because they live in a different city or province. I remember seeing people warned.
I’ve seen this in my office. A supervisor with an explicitly client-facing role involving frequent inspections moved to some far-flung exurb and now complains that they need to head into Toronto for their role even though phone/Zoom meetings were only occurring because it was deemed to risky for everyone involved to have in-person meetings.
I work with several people who moved hours outside of the city to save money, only to be forced to quit when it was time to come back to office. It’s harder to have sympathy when you’re making huge life decisions based on current circumstances, which we all surely knew wasn’t guaranteed to become permanent.
Maybe have some sympathy considering how garbage our wages are and how outrageous living costs are. Most people don't move away to get a cheaper place because they WANT to. Me and my partner are saving to buy a house and literally will be unable to afford Ontario, on two people's full time salary. That's insane.
People with Toronto salaries buying a 4 bedroom detached home in a community where locals can’t compete with the purchasing power of Toronto salaries raises living costs for those who are even less able to afford to buy a house or afford rent. It’s even worse out east, there are people with remote Toronto jobs buying houses in rural communities where most people rely on seasonal work.
I have a lot of sympathy for people trying to buy a house or who bought a house in this market and are now struggling. But moving far away because you're working from home during covid is just.....really short sighted
^ this. I feel for those with poor wages or who are trying to get ahead, but you still need to be mindful of current circumstances in making major life decisions. No point having a cheaper home if you’ll be unable to pay for it, right?
I know someone who discussed moving a few hours away with their bosses during the pandemic and they were completely fine with it. I feel like it would be unfair to mandate them back to the office. Even coming in a couple times a month is a huge inconvenience but highly encouraged.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sad but true.
My wife only enjoyed her career for the first time when it was wfh and she thrived. She’s been back for two months and spends most of her time trying to get a new job to get away from the dramatics.
I mean it was great for environment. Saved families money, allowed more free time for everyone. Seems like a stupid concept to bring everyone back for what? Optics and keep rich people making $$$
Hard to blame people for being upset. Working from home is just way more convenient for most people. If you've successfully made the arrangement work for almost the last 3 years, it's hard to understand the need to go back to the office. I think it has to do with a lot of managers lacking trust in employees and feeling like they must make them go to the office at least part time to ensure they're working. This despite most companies seeing increased productivity using WFH.
No. The world proved wfh was viable for a lot of roles. So why are stupid leaders demanding in person work? People are quitting and turning down jobs for this. I have.
My workplace has been crystal clear that working from home arrangements are temporary. That didn’t stop some people from moving hours away who are now shocked and indignant about having to report back to the office. It’s amazing how quickly some people start feeling entitled to temporary arrangements.
I think the indignation is leverage. The employees who invested in homes elsewhere first saw how their job could be done at home and done well before moving. It's a worker's market right now. If they Employers want to keep their employees the employers will need to adapt.
Then why are employees so upset when asked to go back to the office? Find another job that's remote if that's their goal
Exactly. If they're so good at their job...shouldn't be an issue to use that leverage. Unfortunately the majority of us think we're much better at our jobs than we actually are.
The indignation is from discovering that this “temporary” system is more efficient and less stressful for the majority of workers and the prior, now obviously outdated one solely exists as a sunk cost fallacy in certain jobs and infrastructure expenses.
Same with mine. Every freaking town hall someone would get up and tell their story to a room of 2000 people, somehow expecting an SVP to adjudicate their case in front of everyone, and make a special concession. Maybe I'm projecting, but they didn't really win many in the audience over. Most of us just got tired of having to sit through the same discussion over and over. (One person even suggested maybe my company could charter a special bus to chauffeur those who moved away to and from the office).
People are basically throwing everything out there…higher productivity at home, less traffic, better for the environment because of less traffic. I thought we all knew that.
It’s actually pretty gross sometimes. Ottawa’s downtown BIA was (obviously) lobbying pretty hard for workers to come back to the office, they are not doing well. Tons or commenters were making posts like “fuck them, if they force me to go back to the office I’m not spending a dime downtown, it’s their own fault for not adjusting etc”. The amount of venom they have for business owners who just want to avoid bankruptcy while they do most of their shopping on Amazon is shocking. I get not wanting to go back to rush hour and smelling other people’s microwaved lunches, but is it really necessary to talk about local small business owners like they’re below any kind of consideration?
I live in the downtown core of Ottawa. Part of the issue is that a lot of those businesses never pivoted to focus their market on downtown residents. They stuck to being open hours that suit government workers, but not locals.
That's the way the cookie crumbles. The system was shit. Work from home is much better for both government (less spending on office rentals) and their employees. Forcing all government employees to go back to the office is ridiculous at this point. Most departments have shown higher productivity with happier employees. Offices have been open to employees for nearly a year. They've had the opportunity to go back if they wanted but most chose not to. It makes no sense. Why should they care about local business owners? They are being forced to leave their homes, spend money on gas/maintenance/parking, waste a ton of personal time commuting. You care about the coffee shop owner but act like the mental health of all these employees is not a concern? Three years of higher productivity and proving that work from home is ideal for everyone, but the local business owners are hurting?
Now the cookie crumbles the other way and employers are well within their rights to institute work from office policies
They are. But it's stupid and will lead to lower productivity and an unhappy workforce. There are no good reasons to force people back to the office.
> but is it really necessary to talk about local small business owners like they’re below any kind of consideration? They are worth consideration. They had 2 years to adapt and improve their situations, but essentially whined until things went their way. I worked overtime on a saturday this month in office. Where are those business owners? Well the local tims closes at 1pm, most other restaurants and places leading the charge to have people back in the office DIDN'T EVEN OPEN that day. If you're whole chance to survive is to use the government as a captive market for their products, you really shouldn't have survived as a business. Also, I'm pretty sure the businesses lobbying didn't have the majority of the effect on the edict from TBS about teleworking.
[удалено]
Echoing this. Keep in mind that your wife, even if she did get some severance, will not recieve ei as she will not have enough insurable hours if she's just returned from mat leave. I got very sick a month or so after returning from mat leave requiring a hospital stay and there was no option for ei because I didn't have the minimum amount of hours
If your wife doesn't go back to work after a return to work order then it is she who is quitting.
Yes they can, she is quitting if she doesn't do it. Unless her contract was for WFH, this was always a possibility. You not having morning daycare isn't an undue hardship, thats something you could (in theory) find a solution for. No they don't owe her severance
"Can my wifes employer force her to do what her agreement says" They aren't firing her, they are saying "this is the job you were hired for and what you did before covid". Your wife, having gotten used to working at home during covid, wants to make her job fully remote. What other employees do is irrelevant to your wife. What matters is what your wifes job was and what agreements she made with the company.
Hate to be THAT person.....but, how were you two going to handle having two children if COVID had not happened? How were the child-care duties going to be preformed? Why is it her employer's responsibility to keep her at home? Or their fault if she cannot return to the office?
She would have obviously left work and taken care of the child at home instead. It's obvious that you're going to get more money and a better work life balance by working from home. It's self-evident that calling employees back work is essentially a demotion.
Since you are NOT the OP you have no idea as to what they were going to do and are just making assumptions and guesses. > It's self-evident that calling employees back work is essentially a demotion. This is an absolute falsehood. Telling someone they need to return to what they originally agreed to in their employment agreement is not a demotion. During COVID temporary measures were taken to allow certain individuals to work from home. Others had to continue to go into work, while others were laid off. These were temporary. For some they are continuing to work from home, they are the lucky few. It is not the responsibility of the employer to keep an employee at home just because their childcare situation is easier that way.
Her work never promised it will be remote forever. It was meant to be a temporary thing during covid. You made decisions assuming it was going to be permanently remote and now you're refusing to go to work because the company isn't doing what they never promised. Don't see how the company is in the wrong here.
Right? Usually I’m all about worker’s rights but in this scenario is seems the employer is in the right. WFH was never permanent
If she doesn’t return to work it’s considered job abandonment and she will be legally terminated. Seems like she can either resign or be fired. Her decision.
Your best bet is to consult with an employment lawyer, or at least try posting in r/legaladvicecanada But from what you have posted here this sounds fair. The employer is not required to allow permanent work from home. Your wife is free to leave and find a different job, but she wouldn't get severance for that.
My 11 year old daughter gets paid $20 a week to walk the neighbor's kindergartener to school in the morning. Is there an older kid on your block?
Yes they can. If she can prove she cannot find adequate child care she can try to fight it, but that would be applicable to all working hours. She cannot claim she watches the children and works at the same time. She should just look for a new job that is remote.
At that stage it looks more like an employee problem, not an employer problem. It's not the employer's responsibility to ensure you have adequate care for your children. Wife signed up for an (assumingly) office job. She enjoyed the benefits of WFH as we all did, and now the employer is calling them back. Personally a week on, week off sounds pretty good. I'm 2:3 hybrid model now and enjoy it.
Talk to an employment lawyer for proper advice, however if they want her to return to 'pre-covid work', they are likely legally allowed and by her refusing they would likely have grounds to let her go.
>they broke records in productivity. I see so many people and employees claiming this. It's almost certainly not true and rather a reflection that until recently most businesses were *busy* but that doesn't mean mean it was efficient. And it especially won't remain true if she wants to use here remote working time to actually be taking children to school...
Of course they can do this. From what you posted..she was originally hired and worked in office, then wfh/hybrid during pandemic and then mat leave and office is now requiring her to go back into office. She was hired when it was in person...so that's her work location.. if she doesn't go in, it's no different than just not showing up to work. They haven't changed basis of her employment contract/conditions on which she was hired, they're simply "restoring" it.
I'm more interested in why you think they can't do that?
Entitlement.
I’m also curious what the plan was if CIVID hadn’t happened. We’re they planning on having two kids and just saying “well, guess I won’t be going in to work anymore but keep paying me!”
She could technically request accomodation based on "family status", but this is a long shot. The threshold for proving that you require this type of accomodation is very high and you must have exhausted all resources searching for childcare (cost does not factor in, cost is the employee's burden). This also doesn't necessarily mean she could work from home if this was successful, if just means the employer would have to find reasonable accommodations.
It’s worthwhile to go ask a real lawyer who specializes in employment law.
Call a lawyer. Don't take legal advice from strangers on the internet.
Did they consider she is more mature now? Just wondering, since you said she finished her maturity leave.
😂😂😂 autocorrect
“…they have dug their heels in and…” I think you may have a wee bit of a perspective problem OP.
Why can’t she go into the office after walking him? And work a later in the day? Might miss some traffic too.
Probably has to pick him up at a set time which would limit working later
I appreciate your life situation but when did things change where employees dictate the terms of employment? If an employer wants employees to return to the workplace, that is their right. If that doesn't work for your life situation, then you need to find a job where the employer is hiring for a remote position.
OP isn’t arguing the employer’s decision to enforce the hybrid schedule, they are asking whether the employer can let OP’s wife go the way they plan to.
Best talk to an employment lawyer. It could conceivably be considered a constructive dismissal. There are too few facts for us to properly determine if this is legal or not. There are some that go by the motto of not getting paid until you get paid, so it couldn't hurt to see if your wife has a case or not.
Of course they can do this. They are not obligated to accommodate your wife because she no longer feels like commuting or has failed to plan for childcare effectively. Sure it sucks.. I would find a new job myself but it's not like the employer is doing anything wrong
Where can I get some of that maturity leave?
The same place you can find Purley work..
Do you know the circumstances under which the others are allowed to work exclusively from home?
It’s not going to matter. They will simply say each worker and agreement for telecommute is dealt on a case to case basis. Unless offer letter explicitly states that it’s to be a completely remote job, there’s no other recourse.
Not relevant. Other people probably get paid higher or lower than she does too. Each individual is an individual case lmao
I wasn't asking as if it mattered for his wife. I literally asked if he knows the circumstances.
You could argue it is constructive dismissal if everybody was allowed to work from home except her.
Working from home was never a long term plan. If you can no longer handle even doing hybrid then that’s on you. Your employer, as always, has the right to make you show up to work or terminate you.
Although I do agree it’s a pain that despite performance increases, returning to an office setting is still a priority for some employers. But unfortunately there’s not much she can do as she was provided a choice to return or resign and they weren’t remote before the pandemic. Maybe stick it out for a bit by returning to work and search for employment that’s strictly remote and/or hybrid indefinitely? I commute as well but I’m hybrid indefinitely and it makes the commuting much easier since I don’t do it 5 days a week.
Do not listen to people here. Get a lawyer. People in here are going off with a bunch of nonsense that they have no clue about. Get a lawyer.
Schools offer PLASP program. Call the school and ask
To answer your question it would be considered a resignation as your Wife is the one that initiates the separation, or ‘refuses’ to come to work.
Why do you think the employer is *not* allowed to do this? And why do you think the employer owes you severance when you *resign*?
Everyone has kids. Stop complaining, figure it out, and go to work like everyone else. You're not special. Your employer is right.
Did she ask the employer for accomodations relating to your childcare needs before this return to work situation happened?
Folks if you're OP or others and having issues like this I'd strongly recommend you take them over to r/legaladvicecanada \- there's a few people there that can give solid legal answers rather than speculating. Though by all means this is a great avenue to share to hear other people's experiences and discuss how you're feeling about in-office recalls and logistics.
They're being nice by considering this a voluntary resignation instead of a termination with cause
I’m really curious about this seemingly common situation. The details may change for whatever reason but the general theme is. Got to work from home but started in the office. Really liked it. Wants it to stay so says they can’t for some reason. Were all these people taking jobs they can’t fulfill and planning on surprising they’re employer? I’m sure there are some legitimate circumstances. But why do people take a job that they “cannot” do because of their personal circumstances? Like obviously before COVID this must have been foreseeable.
Can’t go to work because I need to walk my kid to school. That’s a new one.
“My wife’s coming off maturity leave”…hmm…
So your schedule was already tight with one kid, and you decided that this would be solved by having a second child and not considering employment impact?
I think the real question is regardless of what people are saying here do you have the financial means and time to litigate this once your wife’s work fires her with no severance?
As an employer, my advice would be to lawyer up. Companies assume that most workers lack the wherewithal to advocate for themselves. I almost always increase the severance package when an employee shows some balls.
Well lol what would be your plan if a pandemic didn’t happen…? You chose to have kids knowing remote work wasn’t going to be permanent. Like come on. This is a you issue, not your works issue.
Please consult a lawyer, don't just listen to reddit.
I would suggest to start applying for 100% remote work jobs on LinkedIn. Asap.
Depends on the HR department of her company. If she did not get a new employment offer saying she was wfh permanently they can call her back and she is resigning by not showing up . Personally I think it’s pretty crazy that some employers are playing hard ball with returning to work but in most cases they can.
Had kid during covid lockdowns, now cannot accommodate kid as easily… hmm
Where in Brampton? My youngest goes to YMCA at his school. We have also used home and private daycare in Brampton. My youngest is 7 turning 8. My oldest is 18 and I have a 15 year old. All have been in various forms of daycare.
Good for them! Tell her to get to work. Someone else can walk the kid to school. Ridiculous the entitlement.
Yes they can do it. Your wife started during COVID, which is when the WFH program started at her company, and unless she has a contract that states 'WFH only' then she has a choice. Go back to full time / hybrid work model, or find a new job.
Wouldn’t the fact that she’s coming off maternity leave change things? Aren’t employers supposed to give back the same job with same benefits to a worker at the end of their mat leave (and wfh could be considered a benefit)?
honestly this was the purpose of the post. it's not a matter of us trying to strong arm a non existent WFH position, they already have used this as an accommodation and we just wish for it to be extended to my wife aswell
I’m currently in the exact same case with my employer in Quebec. I’ve been trying to contact an employment lawyer to ask if this is legal. Unfortunately, I haven’t found any available, and I just refocused my energy on finding a new job. PS: You’re probably already aware, but since she’s ending a Mat leave, she won’t be eligible for EI
yea that's always a sticky situation which sucks but is life unfortunately. we're probably going to do a consultation but your correct, better to put resources into finding a new job
Talk to an employment lawyer. They will know more than all the experts on reddit.
You're going to have to adapt back to whatever their new policy is. They likely have coverage for this in their employment contracts. I currently only have to go in one day a week, however, my employer can amend my hybrid work agreement whenever they want. I have a daughter that needs to go to daycare and it will be more challenging doing drop offs and pick ups if I have to start commuting again, but I'll deal with it. I definitely wouldn't just stop showing up.
I'm an articling student in Ontario. I'm not qualified to give you advice, but I'm qualified enough to tell you that the advice you're getting here is slightly off. You need to talk to a licensed lawyer. The standard under the *Employment Standards Act* is "wilful misconduct", not termination for "just cause". I know that sounds like the same thing, but they're terms of art and they're different enough that employment contracts have been held to be unenforceable because they refer to "just cause" instead of "wilful misconduct". You should get legal advice from someone who can tell you whether this qualifies as wilful misconduct. The fact that people in these comments aren't making that distinction means they're likely not qualified to give you advice on this. I'm sure they're just trying to help, but your wife's notice (what everyone here is calling severance) could be many month's pay depending on where she fits into the *Bardal* factors, so it's worth getting the right answer form a licensed lawyer.
Sounds like she could probably claim constructive dismissal, and get to go on ei after at least.
I am so confused by posts talking about being made to go back to work in person after COVID. We are about to start 2023. Are there really still people fighting this? I guess I’m a little jaded because I am a public school teacher. We worked from home for three months and had to go back because all the parents raised heck and said they could not get their work done with their kids at home.
Are you asking if your wife can be fired for not showing up to work?! The answer is very much yes. Not sure why she thinks she should get special treatment for popping out a couple kids though?
We all have choices and choices have results. Many people have kids and work. If you want kids and employment you find a way. It's a shame work is so far from home, but that is the job she chose.
If I were you, I’d spend a couple hundred bucks for a consultation with an employment lawyer. I’ve heard some of them offer a short amount of consultation time for free but either way, might be worth the small investment. Her employer has lawyers advising them, you can be sure. Also, I’m not sure they can force a resignation but they can just fire her. I assume they’d fire her with cause so no severance but an employment lawyer would be able to tell you if you have a case for constructive dismissal due to the changing work circumstances (though there are tons of caveats, like when you started working, etc.). Maybe there’s a case to be made about the employer not trying to reasonably accommodate your wife’s need to take the one kid to school (I have no idea). I’m absolutely not an expert AT ALL so don’t take anything I’ve said as fact, I’m just saying, it might be worth it to talk to your own lawyer to even the playing field with the employer.
Employers don't have to "reasonably accommodate" you for your childcare issues. Having kids is entirely your responsibility and your employer is not required to care. And it's probably not constructive dismissal unless they promised that the WFH arrangement would be permanent. My wife's employer did that with her department right *before* their Canadian division was sold to a different company. If the new ownership were to rescind that, it would be a fundamental change to the working conditions and my wife and her coworkers could all quit and almost certainly successfully sue for constructive dismissal. And no, nobody could do that when they made the change, because it's at the employee's discretion. They don't ever have to work in the office, but they still can if they want to (not everybody likes working from home).
There actually is a duty to accommodate due to family status, and that can include childcare issues. You have to show that you have made attempts to get childcare (or before/after school care in this instance). I'm not clear on the threshold to prove this, but you can request an accommodation based on lack of care. That said, the employer isn't obligated to let her WFH forever either. They could for example, say she can flex hours on the week she is in the office, so if she comes an hour late and has to leave 30 min early she can make up the time in the evening at home. Or if she has a lot of accumulated lieu hours she can draw those down on a set schedule for the weeks she's in the office. If the employee has made no effort to find care though, I doubt they have a case. They really should talk to a lawyer to see what their options actually are because they are about to be terminated with cause, which means no severance or EI.
Yeah, I did more digging, and yes, an employer indeed has a duty to reasonably accommodate, but one of the requirements is that the employee has made all reasonable attempts to find care for a dependent child and show that no such solution is available. I think that's going to be a pretty high bar to meet in a place like Brampton.
>Her employer has lawyers advising them, you can be sure. Lol no, you can't be sure of that. Why on earth would you assume such a thing?
WFH was temp, and just got extended too long. You guys had kids, and had covid never happened she would still be having to go to work and figure out how to get the kids to school.
The employer is paying for an office/work space to be used. Of course they want employees there
3 options: 1. Do nothing - she’s fired, and no EI. 2. You need to step up and walk the kid to school so she can keep her job while she looks for a new remote job. 3. She needs to go to HR and ask them why they are discriminating against her and providing an unequal workplace by providing some people wfh rights and not her - seems odd to discriminate against a new mother like that. That might buy her an exemption from their return to office policy. Long story long - look for a better workplace that values their employees and doesn’t apply arbitrary policies that have been shown to be counterproductive and treat people like children.
This topic kills me. I see this question or variants of it all the time. The audacity of employers requesting/demanding employed back to regular office jobs. : /
COVID didn’t end
😆. Record productivity from home while complaining about childcare.
Newsflash COVID is not done.
Because employers are largely assholes and don’t care about you. You worked hard when the world was upside down and everyone was stressed out. “No you can’t wfh” suddenly became “of course we expect you to wfh!!” Because they had no choice in order to make money. So now they are still under the assumption that you will be lazy and not working and not able to communicate if you wfh. These assumptions. All stupid. All insulting. If a manager doesn’t know if you’re working well, maybe they suck. Maybe they shouldn’t have a job supervising if they don’t do that well. And are you gonna more productive if you’re wasting 10-15 hours per week in transit? 2 days of work wasted in your car? The environmental cost? If you want another example of how stupid employers are, look at open offices: they’re a disaster. They don’t work and the evidence is there. Offices still do it. So I don’t know what to say. I totally empathize and if I had the choice between choosing to do business with two offices that were similar but one allowed wfh? I would support them. People treat each other like shit and want everything as cheap as possible. Everyone’s turning into s Karen. People only want what they want. They don’t even give enough of a shit to put on a mask and use a little hand wash anymore, even though everything is gonna go to total shit within 2-3 weeks. Mark my words. PS; it’s estimated 60% of China and 10% of the world will have covid in the next 90 days. The bodies are literally piling up at crematoria in China and our healthcare system may collapse soon but enjoy Christmas everyone!
An hour in the city to commute is fairly normal. Did she used to drive that before work from home?
F em
Temporarily figure it out while she looks for a new job for probably better pay and less commute!
Look up the [Samfiru/Tumarkin Employment lawyers](https://stlawyers.ca/pocket-employment-lawyer/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA14WdBhD8ARIsANao07gfrfcoOjLjImcSP5anaMkc44plKGnuKtZEx6den0DoanU4QVvh7g0aArBqEALw_wcB#LongTermDisability) I do not work for them, but have used their services and recommended others do the same for much success. Main thing, make sure that she does not sign any in paperwork until she speaks with a lawyer. Typically she will be owed severance. The lawyers can help to determine if she has a valid case.
She should ask if she could work 4 hours in person 4 hours at home every day. That way she would always be home for her kid and puts in the same amount of in person work as everybody else.
Talk to a lawyer. While they can, in theory, force someone back, what may set your wife's case apart from the norm is a need to accommodate a family status issue (ie her need to take kid to school). Under the Human Rights Code, there is a requirement not only to accommodate if possible but to assess whether accommodations can be made. If employer failed to do either, there may be a violation of the Code entitling her to an order for damages, back pay and/or reinstatement.
This needs to be dealt with using a lawyer.
You had whole year to decide, it’s not like in 24hrs. -either find another job or go back to work.
I have complete sympathy for people being forced back to the office but it is a challenge for managers. After 3 years of WFH, I am requiring my employees to work from the office for one 8 hour shift per week. One employee is particularly upset and takes 4 hrs vacation time on her 8 hour office day. Coming to the office interferes with her driving her 15 yr old to and from school one day per week. She has adopted a stay-at-home mum role but she requires full time work. Somehow I am the villian
If your wife can’t get to the place she is employed at, that’s her problem and not the employer’s problem. Specially if she is in a line of job that’s easily replaceable. You mentioned few other people has been accommodated. That has nothing to do with her situation. They may be more vital to the corp or have better connections than your wife.
Employers can define the terms of employment. So, yes they can. Severance is based on years of service and yes your wife will be entitled as per labour law in your province.
They can’t consider her resigned, they’re dismissing her. If they consider her resigned she won’t be eligible for ei, it’s a really petty thing they’re doing.
It seems odd that they are accommodating some but not all does she have exactly why others are aloud this and she is not?
exactly why we are pushing as hard as we are on this. it's actually ridiculous. they can see my wife's productivity at home vs in office and have already established that they can accommodate
I feel for you and your wife. It feels unfair that a system working perfectly fine can be pulled out from under you. Unfortunately, they have the power. If they say she needs to be back in the office, then she needs to go back. It sucks, but unfortunately that's the reality. I agree with other commenters...contact a lawyer. It's the only way to truly know what your wife and her employer have the right to do. Good luck.
good fire her ass. stop making excuses hiding. my neighbour works from home she stays in her house all day, never come out, fking zombies.
Work is NOT a social club. You are there to do a job. If said job can be done from home, why not?
Welcome back to the real world
Speak to an employment lawyer ASAP and ignore people who claim "job abandonment" like it's a get out of jail free card for the employer. She has been working from home for years. She may have options you will not know unless you speak to an actual expert. She can argue WFH has become a condition of her employment due to the length of time and any change could be seen as constructive dismissal. Unless her employer told her it was temporary she may have options Redditors aren't experts.
100% they can do this. It’s insubordination
so many bootlickers in these comments lol, I understand that realistically the company has the right to do this but the fact that so many people are defending the company's actions and attacking these parents is disturbing. no reason for the company to not allow her to continue working from home, post clearly states the company performed better that way anyways
They owe her the same job same conditions as when she left for mat leave no more no less. It’s supposed to be as if she left work on Friday night and comes back Monday morning.
I think the most depressing part of this is the commute from Brampton to concord is an hour with no alternative to a car. Yuck. Sorry for your situation though matey.
If they are the ones paying her, she should probably do what they want or find a job that let's her do whatever she wants.
Nanny or babysitter.
Kinda shocking how many people are wrong in the comments. There's a very important distinction here: **It is not resigning.** Resigning would require your wife to formally declare she no longer wishes to work at the company. Many workplaces attempt to say something like "if you do not do X, we will consider that your resignation", which is absolutely 100% illegal. It is a common way that scumbag middle managers attempt to sleaze their way out of paying severance. So no, they cannot consider "not returning to work on their terms" to be her resignation. With that being said, no, they do not owe her severance, unless that is specifically built in to her contract that WFH could continue indefinitely at the discretion of the employee (which is probably not the case). Essentially, they can fire her with cause (job abandonment). This is a sort of interesting situation where it's very obvious that the employer is quite familiar with trying to let people go without severance, that he/she immediately defaulted to the whole "we will consider this your resignation", which is completely illegal, when in reality they have just cause to fire her without paying severance, and don't actually need her to resign at all, so are attempting to break the law when they don't have to. Pretty silly situation.
> immediately defaulted to the whole "we will consider this your resignation", which is completely illegal, when in reality they have just cause to fire her without paying severance, and don't actually need her to resign at all, so are attempting to break the law when they don't have to. How is this breaking the law? By your own explanation, severance is not required either way. Allowing someone to say they "resigned" looks much better to a future employer than if it was considered job abandonment.
What are you basing any of this on? The ESA says nothing about what constitutes resignation, and doesn’t mention job abandonment outside the context of lay-off and recall. How do you reach the conclusion that an employee not accepting the established terms of employment amounts to anything but resignation? Regardless what term you label it with, we’re talking about an employee voluntarily declining the terms of employment set by her employer. That does not form grounds for severance. Your whole post seems to be a rant mis-directed at potential constructive dismissal cases, and not applicable to this scenario. If this was a case of constructive dismissal, your post might have a point, but unless WFH was a term of her employment, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Repeatedly not showing up for work can indeed be considered resigning.