'There's a price to pay for dictating changes in working conditions': Senator Tony Dean discusses push by union to prevent hybrid work directive
A recent Federal Court decision has cast a spotlight on employer obligations when implementing return-to-office (RTO) policies, especially where unions and collective agreements are involved.
The decision, Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Attorney General of Canada, 2025 FC 1126, continues the saga around federal public service employee backlash against a 2024 Treasury Board amendment to its hybrid work directive.
The amendment increased the required in-office attendance for federal employees from two days per week to three, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) called it an “abuse of authority”, arguing that the change was made arbitrarily, without sufficient evidence, and in contravention of previously negotiated understandings.
Although the court refused PSAC’s request for broad document disclosure of the government’s files, it did acknowledge that allegations of abuse of authority could justify requests for additional disclosure under different circumstances.
According to Robert Russo, labour and employment law lecturer at the Allard School of Law, the case signals a shift in labour law in unionized environments where employers are now advised to have concrete reasons for RTO policies.
"Particularly in a unionized environment, you need to have a solid basis,” says Russo.
“In a situation like this... you have a letter of understanding that was like an amendment to the collective agreement, that kind of implied one thing, and then the government makes a decision that, in the absence of any clear evidence provided, seems to go against that letter of understanding, at least from the union's point of view.”
How RTO expectations became contested terrain
As Russo explains, the PSAC case has roots in pandemic-era work arrangements, which significantly altered the norms of federal and private sector employment.
“I think we're approaching that point now, especially in a unionized environment, this has been building for some time,” he says.
“Even before the pandemic, because of the cost of living and commuting and all the other challenges, it was something that was a big issue already. The pandemic changed a lot of things, and now you're seeing the effects.”
The legal challenge emerged after the Treasury Board amended its Direction on Prescribed Presence in the Workplace – although on its surface a small change, it is still a significant one, says Russo, as it could potentially be seen to tip power in favour of employers.
“This is the problem, is reaching that kind of sweet spot, and this is kind of the heart of the dispute here with the government, is that it doesn't seem like a big deal to go from two to three days a week, but it kind of is, because it tips that balance,” he explains.
“Employees were getting used to the idea of working a majority of the time remotely, and now the government is shifting that to a majority of the time they're expected to be back in the office. You see that kind of tension in the private sector as well.”
Senator Tony Dean, Distinguished Fellow at the Munk School and former head of Ontario’s public service sector, emphasizes this point, explaining that hybrid workforces across sectors are navigating varied norms; whether an organization should implement RTO policies depends largely on specific circumstances.
“There’s a significant mix and spectrum of situations, both within and between workplaces and within and between sectors, and whether or not there’s a presence of a union or not, whether it’s a public or private sector workforce,” he says.
“It depends on what you want the outcome to be. What are the advantages and disadvantages of returning fully to status quo, or putting in place some sort of modified work from home?”
Rights, risks and RTO in unionized settings
The Federal Court decision also highlights the unsettled legal terrain surrounding remote work entitlements, Russo explains – but it’s a matter that will likely evolve case-by-case.
“It's not an area that's been really well studied in my opinion, at least legally,” he says.
“Apart from the duty to accommodate certain employees who have disabilities or other kinds of human rights issues where there might be a duty of the employer to accommodate remote work, there isn't really that much developed in the way of legal rights to remote work.”
Without firm legal precedent, much of the debate currently rests on policy rationale and procedural fairness. However, Russo says, even in the absence of current legal precedence, since the pandemic there is more evidence that supports remote work where appropriate.
He emphasizes that when an employer reverses informal expectations, it must be transparent: “Be very clear and say when you're making this decision, ‘Here is the evidence that we're providing, that lies behind the decision.’”
Dean echoes the importance of process and communication in managing employee expectations, even in the private sector. Without proper consideration of employee needs and opinions around RTO policies, the consequences could be steep in the form of lost employee morale.
“There’s a price,” he says.
“There’s a price to pay for dictating changes in working conditions at any time. But where it has been demonstrated, at least from the employees’ point of view … that the advantages outweigh the deficits, or there’s no change, I think people feel that there’s no reason that they should have to go to the office five days a week.”
Evidence expectations are rising post-pandemic
The pandemic didn’t just change work patterns—it reset employee expectations and, arguably, employer obligations. Russo identifies this as a fundamental sea change; what was once considered an employer prerogative now demands a concrete and provable reason.
And, post-pandemic, many organizations now have evidence to the contrary in their own records, he adds.
“Because of what happened during the pandemic, there was a demonstrated ability for people, a lot of employees, not everyone, to do their work remotely,” Russo says.
“So now that you've had that, and you've had that experience, that's something that's taken into account. It's new evidence that wasn't there before.”
Dean points out that many workers experienced tangible benefits from remote work and expect to continue doing so.
He also stresses that most employees who are pushing back against RTO policies aren’t coming from a position of weakness or ignorance, suggesting that employers should keep this in mind when considering imposing RTO.
“We’re talking about a relatively highly educated, tech-savvy, professional level, or semi-professional level of workers,” Dean says.
“That's the strata, and they're smart, they're committed. As far as they can see, working from home has not caused any lag in their productivity. Many of them would say they're more productive. They like to go in one day a week or one day every two weeks to have a team meeting and hang out with people. But they're doing really well at home.”
Strategic considerations for HR professionals
The implications of the PSAC v. Canada (AG) decision will be felt in future bargaining cycles, Russo predicts, with RTO no longer in the background of negotiations but front and centre. He adds that it could also have long-term effects on private sector employment practice and law, as human rights cases and the like slowly catch up to new public sector norms.
“This is a really interesting case, because PSAC is obviously a very huge union, the federal government is a huge employer,” he says.
“This is kind of the leading edge of it. It's going to trickle down to other cases in Canada too. And so you're going to start seeing this more and more in other industries, particularly in unionized workplaces, but eventually even in the private sector as well.”
Dean also advises HR leaders to break with the status quo – even though private sector employers are not legally required to provide reasons to implement RTO policies, it would behoove them to practice dialogue with their teams when planning or modifying hybrid policies.
“My advice would be, first of all, hear them out. Give them voice. Let them know that you're actually looking at this,” he says.
“You’re not rejecting anything out of hand. You've got some questions about it. You're unsure about it … you're letting people know that you're not simply dismissing it, but you've got a bit of homework to do, and you'd be interested in hearing from them too.”
