Hybrid work 'very complicated issue,' says academic, and feds' mandate of 3 days in office doesn't recognize 'complexity of issue'
The federal government announced plans to change its hybrid working policy last week, mandating public service employees return to the office (RTO) three days per week, up from its current two.
The policy is “problematic,” according to one HR academic, while unions representing the workers call the move “disastrous” — and there are legalities to consider, says an employment lawyer.
So, will private sector employers follow suit?
Hybrid work ‘complicated issue’
“It's a very, very complicated issue. And for me, the fact that the government is focusing on number of days, it's problematic, because it's not recognizing the complexity of the issue,” says Linda Duxbury, professor of management at the Sprott School of Business at Carleton University. “It's not doing what is necessary to actually figure out the answers to some of the questions.”
Duxbury has studied the issue of balancing work and family as well as the impacts of technology on individual workers and organizations.
“It's easier to manage when everybody's in the office. And during the pandemic, it's easier to manage when everybody's at home full time,” she says.
“But it becomes a lot more complicated when you have people who are in sometimes, not other times: ‘Who's in when? Where do I go to connect with different people?’ … so it's a very complicated issue, and focusing on number of days isn't really getting us anywhere.”
No consultation on hybrid work policies
A major complaint of unions representing the affected federal employees is that there was no consultation with their representatives or employees prior to the announcement.
“We see this as a huge step backwards, when there was a lot of research coming out, when there's a lot of good evidence to show that workers are better off when they have at least the flexibility to telework,” Nathan Prier, president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees (CAPE) told Canadian HR Reporter.
“We see this as them having committed a major catastrophic blunder here.”
In its most recent survey, CAPE members shared that they want either the option for full-time remote work or “very clear flexibility language” in their collective agreements going forward, “establishing that they have the right to ask for telework and get it without a lot of pushback unless there's some clear operational need for them to be in the office,” said Prier.
For Sharon DeSousa, national executive VP at PSAC, employers should be asking what sort of workforce they would like to have.
“Do you want a more productive workforce that is happier with work-life balance? Or do you want one that is reverting back to an archaic idea of having butts in the seat as more productive?” she says.
“Having a flexible work arrangement will make your workforce more productive, and it should be done on an individual basis, it shouldn't be done as a blanket [approach]. Giving people choice with how they work will in fact make sure that, whether you’re private or public sector, it will make your organization flourish.”
Legalities of RTO mandates
The question of hybrid work mandates is largely related to contracts, says Adrian Jakibchuk, partner at Littler in Toronto.
In the case of private sector employers, the language in employment contracts, as well as the employment relationship itself, play a large role in determining best practices around hybrid work policies, he says.
“As a practice, I recommend to employers, certainly in light of COVID, to make clear in their employment agreements that initially their intention may be to have the employee working from home, perhaps remotely or working on a hybrid approach, that the employer reserves its rights to require in-person attendance at work,” says Jakibchuk.
“So you don't have these disputes in the future as to whether it is a breach of the employment contract to now turn around, when someone's been working remotely for so long, and to say, ‘Well, guess what? That's not going to be happening anymore.’”
A main concern for employers, says Jakibchuk, is whether the RTO policy could be seen as a substantial change to the employment agreement so it constitutes constructive dismissal.
“If someone signed an agreement, let's say it was during COVID, saying ‘You're going to be working remotely’ and then an employer later wants to introduce an in-person requirement … I think you'd certainly be running a much greater risk that the employee would say, ‘This wasn't the deal, this isn't what I agreed to.’”
Focus on quality of work rather than location of work
Rather than focus on how many days an employee should be in the office, employers should be questioning what each job in their organization requires to be as effective and productive as possible, before determining if it should be remote, in-person or in-between, says Duxbury.
“The discussion has gone all over the place,” she says, “and where it should be is how do we design work so that people know what they're supposed to do, they can deliver service to Canadians, so we still get satisfaction and an ability to connect with our co-workers.”
On the other hand, a lot is being lost by working purely at home, such as the whole social aspect of work, says Duxbury.
“The whole argument right now is on the wrong things, and in many cases, both groups are focusing on certain things, which isn't advancing the issue.”
And it’s not likely the “successful” private sector will mandate a return to the office, she says, pointing to organizations such as Microsoft, which have been implementing their own hybrid work policies successfully.
“They're focusing on the work, their objective criteria, working on all those things, and then they're trying it out and collecting data,” Duxbury says.
“They're not going to change because the government randomly decides two days, and then randomly decides three; they don't see that that makes sense from a business perspective.”
