‘If your workplace does not have the necessary space, equipment or furniture, then you will win the CRA lottery’
The Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) plan to require most staff to work on site four days a week is facing strong opposition from its largest union.
In a communication to members dated May 21, 2026, the Union of Taxation Employees (UTE) – a component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) – said the CRA will move ahead with increasing mandatory on‑site presence to four days per week in July, following a federal government directive announced on Feb. 5 2026 for the federal public service.
The government directive is scheduled to take effect on July 6, 2026.
The CRA is a separate employer from the Treasury Board and is only “encouraged to follow the same approach,” the union noted. UTE said the change was announced “without any consultation with the unions” and while members have been without a collective agreement since 1 November 2025.
UTE National President Marc Brière described the move as “simply unacceptable and indefensible,” and said the union considers the directive “political and improvised.” He wrote that the employer “has not demonstrated that this will improve employee productivity or the quality of services provided to the public. Quite the opposite.”
The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat announced the four-day in-office mandate in February. The official rationale, as articulated by Treasury Board President Shafqat Ali, is framed around strengthening the public service, collaboration, and culture — not a quantified productivity case.
Ali stated: "This approach is about strengthening the public service so it can continue to meet the moment now and, in the years, ahead", adding that "In a rapidly changing global landscape, Canadians expect us to meet the moment now and into the future," according to a CP24 report.
Rafael Gomez, professor of employment relations at the University of Toronto, previosuly said that the "follow the leader" move actually makes sense.
"When a few major institutions — big banks and also government — began to mandate the opposite of the mandates during the pandemic, the mandate back to work, it caused a lot of employers who were operating without evidence to say, 'Well, let's follow the leader.' That sounds like a nonsensical argument, but it's not. There's a well-worked-out theory called informational cascades."
However, "where informational cascades break down is when the first mover, who may be credible — it could be government, it could be a big bank — didn't actually do the research and just moved on a whim or because of other pressures. I think we did a lot of that copying the leader and leading to bad decisions during the pandemic. And I think we did it now after the pandemic too."
Two months before the federal government’s requirement for all federal public service workers to be in office four days a week, more than 25,000 people have shown support for a federal e‑petition calling on Ottawa to amend the Canada Labour Code to guarantee a minimum level of hybrid work for computer‑based employees in federally regulated sectors.
Labour complaints and uneven implementation
PSAC has filed an Unfair Labour Practice complaint against the federal government and, on behalf of UTE, against the CRA. The union said PSAC has also filed a statutory freeze complaint, alleging the employer unilaterally changed employees’ working conditions while bargaining is in progress.
UTE said it has been raising concerns with senior CRA management since the Feb. 5 announcement. According to the union, the agency committed to giving employees at least 60 days’ notice before any new mandatory on‑site requirement and to discuss the matter with the presidents of UTE and the AFS group before any public announcement.
Following a meeting with the CRA Commissioner and senior human resources officials, Brière said he reiterated UTE’s “opposition to any imposed mandatory on‑site presence” and requested that telework and remote work be negotiated at the bargaining table. He said the commissioner confirmed the CRA would “move forward with this policy change and would therefore follow the Treasury Board directive.”
A message sent by the commissioner to CRA employees on the morning of May 21 confirmed the move to four days a week in July and stated that the change “should not be implemented before Monday, July 27, 2026,” UTE said. The union reported that the message also acknowledged the decision will be applied “unevenly, depending on the capacity of offices, regions and branches.”
Space constraints, costs and telework dispute
UTE said more than one third of the buildings currently occupied by the CRA “do not have the necessary space to accommodate employees four days per week,” and that several other offices are already at their capacity limits. The union said employees in many workplaces already struggle to find an adequate workstation, sit with their team, work in an environment conducive to concentration, or hold confidential conversations with taxpayers.
With office capacity varying widely, UTE argued the new requirement would create a “real lottery” for staff. “If your workplace does not have the necessary space, equipment or furniture, then you will win the CRA lottery,” Brière wrote, as the requirement would be postponed; those in fully equipped locations would “lose the CRA lottery and will be forced to report to the office more often.”
In a CTV News report, Brière noted: “Now, those who are not lucky have a bad number, they’re going to be forced to go back to the office four days a week. The others will remain at three, and some, even luckier with a winning number, will remain at two days a week.”
In February, the federal government insisted it can secure enough desks for public servants as it moves to a four‑day‑a‑week office mandate, even as unions and experts warn that many buildings are already at or beyond capacity. However, Treasury Board spokesperson Martin Potvin acknowledged that “there may not be enough workstations at some locations to meet the four‑day work week requirement for all staff” at the start of the rollout, according to a CBC report.
Recently, a shortage of office space forced Global Affairs Canada (GAC) to delay its four-days-in-the office mandate, according to a previous report.
The union also questioned the financial impact of the shift. It said the CRA and the federal government “seem quite comfortable spending taxpayers’ money freely to lease new office space or acquire buildings, and to purchase furniture and equipment at exorbitant costs,” while obliging workers to undertake “long and burdensome commutes” to “collaborate” in person.
Telework is one of UTE’s main bargaining priorities, alongside work‑life balance, protections related to artificial intelligence and wage increases. The union said the CRA “still refuses to seriously discuss our priorities,” and argued that “telework is one of our members’ main demands and must be negotiated at the bargaining table, not imposed unilaterally.”
Karen Craft, CEO, iHR Advisory Services, argues that having workers in the office actually boosts productivity.
"Productivity plus quality equals heightened productivity. Can I work from home and be productive? Yes. Can I work from home and get the kind of mentoring I need, the just-in-time collaboration, the relationship building with my colleagues, with my clients? Having access to people in the workplace directly increases the quality, which heightens the productivity."
However, employers tend to make mistakes when it comes to mandating that workers report back to the office, said Paola Accettola, CEO & principal consultant, True North HR.
"The biggest pushback we've seen across all of our clients when it comes to return to work is in not being clear about why they're bringing people back into work. It's like saying to a child, 'You have to do this because I told you so.' Nobody likes hearing that — not adults, I don't care what generation."
Here are other pros and cons of in-office and hybrid work setups:
