While certain statements may have 'conveyed reassurance or an intention to maintain telework,' they were ‘consistently framed in non‑absolute terms,' says tribunal
A recent ruling offers encouraging news for employers’ rights when it comes to calling workers back to the office.
TELUS Communications did not breach its collective agreement when it required certain Quebec customer service employees to work on site three days a week, a labour arbitrator has ruled.
In a Feb. 5, 2026 award, the Labour Arbitration Tribunal in Quebec dismissed a grievance by the Syndicat québécois des employés de TELUS, Local 5044 – CUPE, which challenged the company’s decision to modify telework arrangements for approximately 120 office employees working in consumer customer service.
The case centred on TELUS’s July 10, 2024 announcement that affected employees, who had worked almost exclusively from home since the start of the COVID‑19 pandemic, would be required to return to the office three days per week. The measure was initially set to take effect on Sept. 15, 2024, then postponed to Jan. 8, 2025.
Union’s claims and TELUS’s response
The union alleged that TELUS unilaterally and arbitrarily altered telework programs contrary to the 2023–2028 collective agreement. It also argued that the employer was barred by promissory estoppel from changing course after allegedly suggesting that a return to in‑person work “would never happen.”
The union said many employees had made significant personal and financial decisions in reliance on what they understood to be permanent full‑time telework.
The employer responded that it was exercising management rights expressly preserved in the collective agreement and in the company’s AHA Quebec telework program. It said the decision followed a structured review of operational needs, was consistent with practices elsewhere in Canada, and remained within the bounds of a hybrid model, with employees still able to telework two days per week.
Telework is not as ‘a guaranteed or permanent right’
Arbitrator Marc Mancini found that telework had not been converted into a vested right by the collective agreement. Referring to established arbitral principles, he wrote that “telework is not, in and of itself, a condition of employment unless it is clearly recognized as such in the collective agreement.”
He concluded that Article 51—added in 2023 bargaining—“does not establish telework as a guaranteed or permanent right. Rather, it allows employees to participate in telework programs by mutual agreement and in accordance with the Employer’s applicable policies and directives.”
The union also claimed TELUS failed to comply with clause 51.2, which requires the employer to meet with the union and review any substantial modification to telework directives before implementation. The Labour Arbitration Tribunal held that the clause is “procedural in nature” and “does not grant the Union a veto nor does it require the Employer to obtain the Union’s consent.” Mancini found that TELUS advised and met with the union before the announcement, and that disagreement with the result did not establish a breach.
AHA program language
The arbitrator placed further weight on the wording of the AHA Quebec telework program introduced in 2021 and updated in 2022.
That program required participants to live within a defined radius of their TELUS work location and be able to reach the office within two hours, and stated that “At any time, management may decide to remove a team member from the telework program, temporarily or permanently, at its discretion and without delay.”
According to the decision, “Employees who agreed to participate in the AHA Program accepted these conditions. While the program was widely perceived as stable, stability does not equate to immutability.” The requirement to remain within commuting distance supported the conclusion that on‑site work “was always contemplated as part of the employment relationship.”
One legal expert previously discussed in an HRD article the legal implication of return-to-office mandates.
Estoppel argument rejected
On promissory estoppel, the union relied on alleged statements during 2023 bargaining and internal communications that it said amounted to a promise of permanent telework. The Labour Arbitration Tribunal recited the need for a “clear and unequivocal” representation and reasonable detrimental reliance.
Mancini found that the evidence did not establish such a clear promise. The award notes that “certain statements may have conveyed reassurance or an intention to maintain telework at the time,” but that they were “consistently framed in non‑absolute terms and accompanied by references to business needs and future flexibility.” Employer witnesses testified that they deliberately avoided any irrevocable commitment.
The decision states that, even if some employees believed telework would continue indefinitely, that belief was not objectively reasonable “in light of the clear language of the AHA Program and Article 51 of the collective agreement.” The arbitrator added that “personal choices made in reliance on an assumption that is inconsistent with the governing documents cannot ground an estoppel.”
Management rights and impact on employees
The tribunal also considered whether TELUS had exercised its rights unreasonably or abusively, and concluded that it had not.
“The evidence demonstrates that the employer undertook a structured and documented decision-making process prior to implementing the return-to-office measure,” Mancini wrote. The process included internal consultations, operational analysis, benchmarking against practices in other regions, and consideration of employee engagement, supervision and service quality. TELUS delayed implementation and “temporarily suspended it pending the outcome of related litigation in British Columbia, demonstrating prudence rather than haste.”
On proportionality, the award states: “The requirement to work on site three (3) days per week cannot be characterized as excessive or disproportionate. Telework remains available two (2) days per week, preserving a significant degree of flexibility.”
The Labour Arbitration Tribunal recognised that the return‑to‑office rule created hardships, particularly for employees who had relocated. It noted that TELUS introduced a voluntary departure programme and processed accommodation requests, and held that “Hardship alone does not render an otherwise legitimate management decision unreasonable or abusive, particularly where accommodation mechanisms exist and have been applied.”
“I conclude that the Employer did not violate the collective agreement,” Mancini wrote. “Moreover, I conclude that the Union failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to its promissory estoppel argument. Finally, I find that the Employer did not exercise its management rights in an unreasonable or abusive manner. Consequently, the grievance is dismissed.”
The grievance was dismissed in its entirety.
