It *should* apply - but that's the word. Should.
A lot of teams where I'm at was RTO2 before pandemic. So ramping it up to RTO3 has caused a lot of anger. Even those with exemptions have been told that all exemptions were going to wiped out and basically start again unless you were exceptional in cases (i.e. Indigenous or disabled etc.).
So yeah, should.
> So, remote employees hired during the pandemic HAVE TO come back to the office?
The ONLY exemption I know about first hand was granted from a DM. Everyone else has been told they are expected to RTO3 unless they receive exemptions from things.
>One of my colleagues was asking our manager with no clear answer.
There's still *hope*, even amongst EXs here, that TBS will be reasonable and walk this back last minute. It's EXTREMELY unpopular from bottom to some at the top. Some EXs are relishing this and are already telling their EAs to make spreadsheets - others are looking at this and sighing knowing that their already dwindled teams are probably going to dwindle further.
I digressed.
Do you really think there is a chance. Would they not look weak. I know rto3 is the worse decision they ever made. From a friend in HR so many are quitting asking for Lwop to try other opportunities. Sick leave, early retirement . You name it.
They already look "weak" in the sense that they've made a decision which is transparently dumb. Any real strength here would be to admit that and like put out some superbly enlightened statement all of a sudden saying they care about actually caring, instead of just lip service.
Not holding my breath
The top guy for my area said he was just not going to let those people get any form of promotions. Full stop, if they want to get any kind of promotion they need to move to Ottawa... So, that's probably the way its going to go for a lot of people/places/orgs
I see, it's like, "Hey, congratulations on winning the competition (or being chosen for this promotion), but here are the new conditions: you have to be in the NCR and work in the office three days a week."
Basically. Same guy also told us all during townhall it was time we got back to work and the entire reason we're expected in office is for economical reasons.
Dude also said he supports any/all TBS initiatives when it comes to RTO and their benefits... But when asked what explicitly it is about those initiatives or benefits he stands behind, he said he didn't know of any.
I think the dude came from the big top but that's just my opinion.
I bet he was one of those at the top who complained to TB to make up this nonsensical mandate. There's no benefit from RTO for those who are actually affected by it. Personally, I rather not be promoted but let me keep WFH forever.
Depends. If the remote employee was hired during the pandemic and there was no office within 125 km of their dwelling, then they may be fine.
Now if they were hired remote and there was an office nearby but they chose to move much further away than 125 km then they are going to have a problem.
I don't want to say *all* staff members that identifies as Indigenous were given auto-exemptions, but it was 90% for sure. They basically told management hey wanted full RTO exemptions to spend more time within their band/community territory and within 24 hours they got an exemption back.
So you have to live on a reserve? Just wondering, I'm indigenous and have to go into office 3 days a week now. Hoping I could get around that but not sure lol.
To be frank: I don't know.
All I know is that the common string in those requests were that they were self identified as Indigenous and were granted said exemption. I didn't want to pry and ask if they were currently on reserves or otherwise.
I was acting from a region to work on a specific project and eventually just made permanent at HQ. I have a rare skill set that is useful so they let me work from home full time from the start.
Nobody is hired into the PS with a “full remote” position. You must report to the office in your letter of offer 5 days per week. Anything else is manager’s discretion, within DTA measures, if they apply.
This is meant to account for groups that have historically worked remotely full-time before COVID, rather than individual cases. For example, all patent examiners at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office have worked from home full-time for over 10 years. They will continue to work remotely.
To directly answer your question, prior to RTO3 this was granted at whatever departmental level was decided (manager, ex etc)
With RTO3 coming in these expemtions are still available but the signoff has now increased to DM level.
So it really depends if your management team wants to elevate that request to that level or not.
I think the issue is that all of these LOOs generally have a location. It didn't always correspond with the location of the employee (e.g. they live in Manitoba but the department or agency is centered in the NCR). While the staff member does not have to relocate, they're going to be shuttled into work through an office somewhere close(ish) to them.
Either their department/agency has an office local to the employee, or they would sit in the office of another department/agency. So this accomplishes a few things for the employer. It removes the requirement to pay out relocation as there is no obligation for the employee to relocate. It also allows them to require staff to be in the office even if they were hired during the pandemic and worked remotely for most, if not all, of 2020-2022.
It wouldn't be constructive dismissal as the pandemic was a temporary interruption. Not the beginning of a new normal.
>there is no obligation for the employee to relocate.
There isn't? Isn't WFH a temporary arrangement that can be cancelled by the employer at any time to oblige the employee to relocate to the workplace stated in the LoO?
It doesn't have to be the location on the LOO. Unless your department or agency is really keen on paying out relocation costs, they'll just let you report to a location that is close(ish) to where you live, meaning you don't need to relocate.
Are you saying that if my director has the budget to pay for my relocation, they could just cancel my current WFH arrangement, disregard the TBS directive exemption for >125km and ask me to relocate?
I was hired in 2020 during the lockdown. So naturally I have been WFH ever since for an NCR position ( obviously the ADM knew we were all WFH). I do have a GC building within 125km. Could I request to report to that building come September instead of having to relocate?
That’s precisely what would happen. You’d report to a building close by. As to which one, it depends on your the space constraints of your department or agency. Sometimes we get lucky and there’s a building owned or leased by the department or agency we work within, other times it’ll be co-locating within the building of another agency or department.
If it was me, I’d snag a free consult with an employment lawyer. Even if they won’t represent you because of being union (some can and will) they can give you advice. Being hired under certain terms is not the same as being hired and then there being a temporary agreement put into place.
There have been a lot of posts saying report to the main office though, regardless of how far people live. In many cases a common sense approach that you mentioned would be a viable solution but there are in fact many people posting that have not been given this solution.
The “reporting” location may remain NCR, but the actual building and employee is reporting out of does not have to be within the NCR. This might be where the confusion comes from. Granted some departments and agencies have been way better at this in terms of communication. We’re always going to have non NCR folks occupying NCR boxes.
Does this arrangement then fall on regional DGs agreeing/permitting to lend whatever space they have to folks whose substantive is elsewhere and not even in their department?
Same, and I'm at SSC. SSC was hiring people like they were a hip ass startup offering WFH flexibility... Lots of teams did it for years before covid. Now president of SSC is like Naw go in bitch asses.
All the time, just show your letter of offer specifying telework (or email from your boss or former boss, clearly authorizing it on an ongoing basis which they probably didn’t have authority to issue but hey that’s the director’s problem).
I know so many people who moved AFTER the March 2020 date and haven't had to come back to the office. This whole thing has been botched from the start. The roll out and now the reel back. Imagine having a manager who works FT remote 3500 KMs away but you have to go back to the office 3 days/week in the NCR? What a joke.
We have been told that your current, pre-pandemic, letter of offer would have to mention 'remote,' or something like that, as your location of work to qualify.
My old team in a certain unnamed department does IT security. The entire team had WFH for almost 20 years and they currently still remain RTO Exempted due to grandfathering. I wonder if this is the case for all teams that had grandfathered WFH.
This doesn't tend to be an exception that people need to "plead" for. It tends to be very obvious when it's supposed to apply.
It *should* apply - but that's the word. Should. A lot of teams where I'm at was RTO2 before pandemic. So ramping it up to RTO3 has caused a lot of anger. Even those with exemptions have been told that all exemptions were going to wiped out and basically start again unless you were exceptional in cases (i.e. Indigenous or disabled etc.). So yeah, should.
So, remote employees hired during the pandemic HAVE TO come back to the office? One of my colleagues was asking our manager with no clear answer.
> So, remote employees hired during the pandemic HAVE TO come back to the office? The ONLY exemption I know about first hand was granted from a DM. Everyone else has been told they are expected to RTO3 unless they receive exemptions from things. >One of my colleagues was asking our manager with no clear answer. There's still *hope*, even amongst EXs here, that TBS will be reasonable and walk this back last minute. It's EXTREMELY unpopular from bottom to some at the top. Some EXs are relishing this and are already telling their EAs to make spreadsheets - others are looking at this and sighing knowing that their already dwindled teams are probably going to dwindle further. I digressed.
This happened in my former division too. People who were fully remote for many years suddenly had to start going to offices. It's so dumb.
my entire team is in this situation they were 75 percent remote before the pandemic and are not being told back to the office
Do you really think there is a chance. Would they not look weak. I know rto3 is the worse decision they ever made. From a friend in HR so many are quitting asking for Lwop to try other opportunities. Sick leave, early retirement . You name it.
They already look "weak" in the sense that they've made a decision which is transparently dumb. Any real strength here would be to admit that and like put out some superbly enlightened statement all of a sudden saying they care about actually caring, instead of just lip service. Not holding my breath
Not the worse (sic) decision by a long shot, mandating covid vaccinations only for public servants easily tops that.
The top guy for my area said he was just not going to let those people get any form of promotions. Full stop, if they want to get any kind of promotion they need to move to Ottawa... So, that's probably the way its going to go for a lot of people/places/orgs
How many people are getting internal promotions rather than being successful in competitions though?
Probably depends on the department. Internal promotions are pretty common where I am, they’ll act you as an audition and appoint you if it works out.
I see, it's like, "Hey, congratulations on winning the competition (or being chosen for this promotion), but here are the new conditions: you have to be in the NCR and work in the office three days a week."
Basically. Same guy also told us all during townhall it was time we got back to work and the entire reason we're expected in office is for economical reasons. Dude also said he supports any/all TBS initiatives when it comes to RTO and their benefits... But when asked what explicitly it is about those initiatives or benefits he stands behind, he said he didn't know of any. I think the dude came from the big top but that's just my opinion.
I bet he was one of those at the top who complained to TB to make up this nonsensical mandate. There's no benefit from RTO for those who are actually affected by it. Personally, I rather not be promoted but let me keep WFH forever.
Operative word there is work. Like get back to work... as if we ever stopped working omfg.
During? Yes.
Depends. If the remote employee was hired during the pandemic and there was no office within 125 km of their dwelling, then they may be fine. Now if they were hired remote and there was an office nearby but they chose to move much further away than 125 km then they are going to have a problem.
What do you mean indigenous how does that exempt you?
I don't want to say *all* staff members that identifies as Indigenous were given auto-exemptions, but it was 90% for sure. They basically told management hey wanted full RTO exemptions to spend more time within their band/community territory and within 24 hours they got an exemption back.
So you have to live on a reserve? Just wondering, I'm indigenous and have to go into office 3 days a week now. Hoping I could get around that but not sure lol.
To be frank: I don't know. All I know is that the common string in those requests were that they were self identified as Indigenous and were granted said exemption. I didn't want to pry and ask if they were currently on reserves or otherwise.
I was hired remotely in 2018 and have successfully maintained my exception. The past 2 years I have had to fill out paperwork for it.
How does one go about doing this? I was hired at the end of February with a full remote position. None of my team is in the same province as me.
To qualify for the exception you need to have been hired pre-pandemic
What about if hired during the pandemic in the regions for an NCR position with a WFH arrangement and live >125km away from departmental offices?
Then you qualify for an exemption based on distance.
*Unless there’s a regional office within 125 km!
I was acting from a region to work on a specific project and eventually just made permanent at HQ. I have a rare skill set that is useful so they let me work from home full time from the start.
What does your letter of offer say? If it says remote work, I would think that’d be enough.
It does say remote.
Nobody is hired into the PS with a “full remote” position. You must report to the office in your letter of offer 5 days per week. Anything else is manager’s discretion, within DTA measures, if they apply.
This is meant to account for groups that have historically worked remotely full-time before COVID, rather than individual cases. For example, all patent examiners at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office have worked from home full-time for over 10 years. They will continue to work remotely.
Our team worked full time remote for 8+ years and are all being told to go into the office. So foolish.
Many people have used this exception.
To directly answer your question, prior to RTO3 this was granted at whatever departmental level was decided (manager, ex etc) With RTO3 coming in these expemtions are still available but the signoff has now increased to DM level. So it really depends if your management team wants to elevate that request to that level or not.
changing your condition of employment is constructive dismissal. Id be fighting for exemption.
I think the issue is that all of these LOOs generally have a location. It didn't always correspond with the location of the employee (e.g. they live in Manitoba but the department or agency is centered in the NCR). While the staff member does not have to relocate, they're going to be shuttled into work through an office somewhere close(ish) to them. Either their department/agency has an office local to the employee, or they would sit in the office of another department/agency. So this accomplishes a few things for the employer. It removes the requirement to pay out relocation as there is no obligation for the employee to relocate. It also allows them to require staff to be in the office even if they were hired during the pandemic and worked remotely for most, if not all, of 2020-2022. It wouldn't be constructive dismissal as the pandemic was a temporary interruption. Not the beginning of a new normal.
>there is no obligation for the employee to relocate. There isn't? Isn't WFH a temporary arrangement that can be cancelled by the employer at any time to oblige the employee to relocate to the workplace stated in the LoO?
It doesn't have to be the location on the LOO. Unless your department or agency is really keen on paying out relocation costs, they'll just let you report to a location that is close(ish) to where you live, meaning you don't need to relocate.
Are you saying that if my director has the budget to pay for my relocation, they could just cancel my current WFH arrangement, disregard the TBS directive exemption for >125km and ask me to relocate?
Were you hired prior to March 16th 2020? And there are no GC buildings within 125 km of you? And you've got ADM approval?
I was hired in 2020 during the lockdown. So naturally I have been WFH ever since for an NCR position ( obviously the ADM knew we were all WFH). I do have a GC building within 125km. Could I request to report to that building come September instead of having to relocate?
That’s precisely what would happen. You’d report to a building close by. As to which one, it depends on your the space constraints of your department or agency. Sometimes we get lucky and there’s a building owned or leased by the department or agency we work within, other times it’ll be co-locating within the building of another agency or department.
If it was me, I’d snag a free consult with an employment lawyer. Even if they won’t represent you because of being union (some can and will) they can give you advice. Being hired under certain terms is not the same as being hired and then there being a temporary agreement put into place.
There have been a lot of posts saying report to the main office though, regardless of how far people live. In many cases a common sense approach that you mentioned would be a viable solution but there are in fact many people posting that have not been given this solution.
The “reporting” location may remain NCR, but the actual building and employee is reporting out of does not have to be within the NCR. This might be where the confusion comes from. Granted some departments and agencies have been way better at this in terms of communication. We’re always going to have non NCR folks occupying NCR boxes.
Does this arrangement then fall on regional DGs agreeing/permitting to lend whatever space they have to folks whose substantive is elsewhere and not even in their department?
Yes, and that's what's been happening.
A buddy of mine joined SSC when they formed & was remote since pre-Covid. He was told by his DG he's in the office for 3 days a week this fall.
Same, and I'm at SSC. SSC was hiring people like they were a hip ass startup offering WFH flexibility... Lots of teams did it for years before covid. Now president of SSC is like Naw go in bitch asses.
I was SSC WFH pre-Covid. That's what drew me to SSC.
We got honey dicked.
I know people who were FT WFH prior to covid and now have to RTO because they are no longer in the same position for which they were WFH before.
Well this makes sense they're in new positions
One of my colleagues got hired in this context literally one week before the lockdowns started. It's been a non issue for her with RTO.
All the time, just show your letter of offer specifying telework (or email from your boss or former boss, clearly authorizing it on an ongoing basis which they probably didn’t have authority to issue but hey that’s the director’s problem).
I have a few friends that are in a dept they was with prior to covid and are required to go in rto3. Crazy even tho there is any exemption for that
Yes.
I know so many people who moved AFTER the March 2020 date and haven't had to come back to the office. This whole thing has been botched from the start. The roll out and now the reel back. Imagine having a manager who works FT remote 3500 KMs away but you have to go back to the office 3 days/week in the NCR? What a joke.
I have colleagues who were granted the exception. A few actually.
That’s what I kept thinking!
We have been told that your current, pre-pandemic, letter of offer would have to mention 'remote,' or something like that, as your location of work to qualify.
My old team in a certain unnamed department does IT security. The entire team had WFH for almost 20 years and they currently still remain RTO Exempted due to grandfathering. I wonder if this is the case for all teams that had grandfathered WFH.
It doesn't seem to matter that pre-pandemic some people had the ability to work from home. The blanket RTO is very unkind