Case Study: The Cost of Changing Long-Standing Work Arrangements Without Proper Notice
Overview
In Nickles v. 628810 Alberta Ltd., the Alberta Court found that an employer constructively dismissed a long-time remote employee by unilaterally requiring her to begin working full-time from the office. The Court ruled that this was a significant change to a fundamental term of her employment contract and that the employer failed to provide reasonable notice of this change.
Background
Margaret Lynne Nickles was employed as an office manager at a vein clinic from 1986 to 2023—an impressive 37 years. Throughout her tenure, she worked remotely, only coming into the office at her discretion. This flexible arrangement remained consistent, even as the clinic went through changes in ownership.
In 2023, a new ownership group demanded that she begin working full-time from the office with less than three months’ notice. Ms. Nickles refused, asserting that the change represented a constructive dismissal—a fundamental change to the terms of her employment that she did not accept.
The employer countered with a modified proposal: 2.5 days per week in-office, with the option to increase office days in the future. Ms. Nickles declined again, arguing that the offer lacked stability and still undermined her longstanding remote arrangement.
The Court’s Decision
The Court agreed with Ms. Nickles, ruling that:
- Her work-from-home arrangement was an integral part of her employment contract.
- The proposed full-time office requirement constituted a constructive dismissal.
- The mitigation offer (2.5 days/week in office with the possibility of more) did not meet the threshold of a reasonable mitigation opportunity.
- She was not obligated to accept a new term that fundamentally altered the original contract.
Key Legal Takeaways
- Remote Work Can Be a Contractual Right
If a work-from-home setup has been consistent over many years, especially with no objections or performance issues, it may become a fundamental term of the employment agreement. - Unilateral Changes Require Reasonable Notice and Consideration
Even well-intentioned business decisions (such as bringing employees back to the office) require reasonable notice when they significantly alter employment terms. - Constructive Dismissal Doesn’t End Mitigation Duties—But It Sets Boundaries
While dismissed employees must still look for other work, they are not required to accept new roles or terms that contradict their original contract. - Length of Service and Past Practices Matter
The Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s 37 years of service and longstanding work-from-home arrangement weighed heavily in her favour.
What Employers Should Learn
Audit Long-Term Work Arrangements
If employees have worked under informal or unwritten terms for years (e.g., remote work, flexible hours), those terms may now be contractual. Document everything clearly.
Ensure Necessary Elements are in Place for Major Changes
If you need to implement a significant change (such as returning to the office full-time), ensure that:
- The employee receives reasonable notice of the change (often months or even years are sometimes required, depending on tenure).
- You are providing consideration for the change (e.g., acknowledge that it is a change for the employee and provide them with consideration for making the change).
- The employee is provided with a restated employment agreement, outlining the changes to their work conditions while acknowledging their previous service with your organization.
- The new requirement is clearly justified and not arbitrary.
Be Careful When Offering Alternatives Post-Dismissal
Mitigation offers should be concrete, stable, and not contingent on future changes. Otherwise, courts may view them as insufficient.
Revisit Employment Contracts Post-COVID
With remote work becoming normalized, employers must clarify expectations and limitations in updated contracts or policy documents.
Keep In Mind
It’s important for employers to keep in mind that even if they do offer consideration, reasonable notice of the change, a restated employment agreement, and then mitigation attempts if the changed employment offer is rejected, etc., there is always an element of risk associated with making major changes to an employee’s work conditions. Even if all of the necessary elements are present, the employee could still determine that the change itself constitutes constructive dismissal to them. However, by ensuring that those elements are provided, and they are sufficient to the situation, the employer can mitigate their own risk if a case is brought against them.
Conclusion
This case is a cautionary tale about underestimating the legal weight of long-standing work arrangements. Employers must approach changes to such terms with clarity, compassion, and legal care—especially for long-tenured staff. The cost of getting it wrong isn’t just legal liability—it’s losing valuable institutional knowledge and trust.
Advisory Team
Our Advisory team can assist to guide you through difficult situations such as making changes to an employee’s work conditions and helping you to limit your liability wherever possible. Contact us through the chatbot inside our HR Hub or at Service@hrcovered.com and we can help to lead you through the process.
Source: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2025/2025abkb212/2025abkb212.html
