Rumours are intensifying that the federal government may soon mandate a full, five-day-a-week return to the office for its public servants. This potential shift has sparked significant concern among employees who have grown accustomed to hybrid and remote work arrangements established during the pandemic. Many are asking what, if anything, can be done to resist such a sweeping change.
Legal Avenues and Union Tools for Resistance
While challenging an employer directive on workplace attendance is difficult, especially without explicit telework rights enshrined in collective agreements, unions and workers are not without recourse. The absence of a guaranteed right to telework, a point of contention following the 2023 Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) strike, means the fight is often incremental and fought on multiple fronts simultaneously.
One primary legal tool is the policy grievance. This challenges whether the implementation of a directive aligns with existing collective agreements, established labour principles, or past practices. These can be powerfully combined with individual grievances that document specific, real-world harms caused by the policy. Impacts considered significant include conflicts with caregiving duties, refused accommodations, uneven application by managers, and negative effects on employees with disabilities.
Another formal route is seeking judicial review in Federal Court. PSAC previously took this step in response to the Treasury Board's updated directive requiring three days in-office per week. That application is currently paused pending a related grievance process at the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Board.
The Power of Advocacy, Bargaining, and Evidence
Beyond formal grievances, unions can file unfair labour practice complaints, arguing the employer failed to consult adequately or altered working conditions unilaterally. Furthermore, with a new round of collective bargaining underway, there is a fresh opportunity to negotiate for clearer telework criteria, procedural protections, or increased flexibility, even if an absolute right remains elusive.
Sustained public and political pressure is a critical complementary strategy. Unions must keep the issue in the spotlight through media campaigns, member mobilization, and direct advocacy. Public sentiment and political calculations can influence decision-makers in ways that legal processes alone cannot.
An increasingly vital tool is rigorous, evidence-based research. Data on productivity, collaboration, equity, mental health, environmental impact, and service delivery outcomes from academic and independent institutions can powerfully counter assumptions. This evidence strengthens bargaining positions and legal arguments, questioning the efficacy and proportionality of a blanket return-to-office mandate.
Practical Steps for Concerned Public Servants
For individual workers, the first and most crucial step is to engage directly with their union. They should inquire about ongoing policy grievances, the process for filing individual grievances, recommended documentation, and opportunities to participate in public advocacy efforts.
The future of work in the federal public service continues to evolve. The question is no longer if work will change—it already has—but how institutions will manage this transition. The battle over workplace presence will not be settled quickly or in a single forum. It will require a persistent, multi-pronged approach combining legal action, collective bargaining, strategic advocacy, and solid evidence.
