Two birds, one RTO: Are return-to-office mandates ‘dismissals in disguise’? 

Could employers be implementing return-to-office mandates, not only as a means to get employees back in the office but also as a tactic to push out workers – thus avoiding sweeping redundancies?

After Amazon’s recent decision to call upon its global workforce to return to the office (RTO), conspiracy theories of a hidden motive began circulating on social media platforms.

The decision by Amazon’s chief executive Andy Jassy to recall his workforce to the office was made to “strengthen our culture and teams.” According to Jassy, Amazon’s culture has never looked stronger than when all staff are in the office.

“When we look back over the last five years, we continue to believe that the advantages of being together in the office are significant,” Jassy said.

“We’ve observed that it’s easier for our teammates to learn, model, practice, and strengthen our culture; collaborating, brainstorming, and inventing are simpler and more effective; teaching and learning from one another are more seamless; and, teams tend to be better connected to one another.”

This hasn’t been an isolated decision by Amazon, as a number of companies across the globe are flirting with the idea of mandating an RTO. PwC UK has even implemented locational tracking to ensure that their remote workers are following their hybrid arrangement obligations by showing up to the office at least three days a week.

Closer to home, all NSW public sector workers were recently ordered back to their desks, for that same reason of improving team culture – which created a very disgruntled feeling among a number of public servants.

However, due to Amazon’s corporate clout as a world leader in the business space, tensions are beginning to rise throughout the workforce with fears that a domino effect may be in play. This fear and anxiety around the loss of flexibility has sparked conspiracy theories relating to the underlying reasons for why companies may be implementing RTOs.

One that gained notoriety on various social media platforms was the claim that mandating a five-day return-to-office mandate is naturally going to cause some workers to walk out – thus allowing companies to avoid the public disparagement that often comes with mass redundancies, while also cutting costs.

It’s a theory that is not without its merits. In fact, a study conducted in 2023 by BambooHR revealed that 25 per cent of vice president and C-suite executives admitted that they hoped for voluntary turnover during RTOs. Meanwhile, 37 per cent of managers, directors, and executives believed their organisation had layoffs because fewer employees quit during RTO than expected.

This was also reinforced by the fact that 28 per cent of employees would consider quitting if subjected to RTO mandates.

Looking at the statistics, it’s hard to deny the plausibility that Amazon implemented an RTO without this motive in the back of its mind. In his memo to staff, Jassy referenced decreasing bureaucracy within the company by “having fewer managers”.

By decreasing bureaucracy through eliminating managers, costs will naturally come down – and with some managers likely to walk after an RTO mandate, it’s a win-win-win for Amazon.

Termination through RTO refusal

This discussion has numerous facets that could be explored, as an RTO mandate presents a wide range of scenarios. One possibility that could arise is instead of the employee simply leaving the company when an RTO comes into effect, a worker could refuse to comply yet still want to retain their job.

To explain how this scenario would play out, HR Leader reached out to Michael Byrnes, employment law partner from the Sydney-based firm Swaab.

“The legal starting point is that employees don’t have a right to work from home. They are required to attend the employer’s workplace during working hours. One exception to this is if there is an enforceable agreement (or contract term) between the employer and employee that the employee can work from home,” Byrnes said.

“The proposition that employees don’t have an inherent right to work from home is either not understood or deliberately ignored by some employees. Subject to limited exceptions, an employer can issue a legally enforceable direction to an employee to attend the employer’s workplace during normal working hours to perform their work. The merits of working from home (which can, of course, be substantial) are largely irrelevant to the legal analysis.”

Byrnes believes that it is entirely possible that employers could use a refusal to return to the office as a tactic to terminate the employment of a worker as part of a widespread workforce reduction process. This, of course, is a much more cutthroat version of the RTO redundancy conversation – as the employee is not leaving the organisation at their discretion.

“It is perhaps not surprising that employers who want employees to be present in the office rather than working from home use a refusal to return to the office as an opportunity to terminate employment as part of a broader workforce reduction process,” Byrnes said.

“While that might seem brutal on the face of it, in the context of a restructure, employers may consider it fairer to terminate the employment of a recalcitrant employee defying an enforceable direction to return to work than to terminate the employment of a blameless and co-operative employee on the basis of redundancy.”

“The usual risk to an employee in defying a reasonable and lawful direction (such as returning to the office) is compounded when the employer is reducing headcount by restructuring.”

If employers were to go down this path of terminating an employee who refused to comply with an RTO mandate, procedural fairness is of the utmost importance.

“While employers can generally issue a lawful and reasonable direction for employees to return to the office, in deciding to terminate an employee for a refusal to comply, employers need to afford procedural fairness to the employee. And avoid terminating employment because an employee merely makes a complaint and/or enquiry in relation to working from home,” Byrnes said.

This process puts an employee’s back against the wall, as there is no legal binding right for employees to work from home. Therefore, refusing to comply with an RTO mandate spells the worst for employees who choose that path, as there is no control.

That threat of termination leaves employees who adore their flexibility in a conundrum – refusal is certain termination, whereas five days in the office is not an option either. Therefore, it leaves only the option of leaving the organisation at one’s discretion, which oftentimes can be to the benefit of that employer.

Reject the old school ‘command and control’

HR Leader reached out to Infor’s future of work strategist and senior director, Marcus Mossberger, about the possible changes to the status quo of flexible working conditions – and whether he believed there was any substance to employers using RTO mandates as a redundancy avoider.

“In the past, individuals considered themselves beholden to employers and, therefore, were willing to acquiesce to virtually any requirement of employment. Today, younger generations reject the old school ‘command and control’ model and expect to be empowered instead of constrained by official edits from their employers,” Mossberger said.

“They want to work for organisations that assume the best about them, with flexibility emerging as a critical component of trust between employer and employee. This includes the ability to work from anywhere, to work asynchronously and to work autonomously.”

Mossberger pushed back on the notion that these instances of RTO mandates are becoming widespread, believing that most employers have come to the realisation that the hybrid model is in the best interest of both parties.

“Currently, the percentage of organisations that have decided to mandate RTO is in the single digits. In other words, the majority have recognised that a hybrid model is in the best interest of both parties in order to ensure individuals can maintain their lives outside of work,” Mossberger said.

“New norms are emerging that are both enigmatic and pragmatic. Technology tethers us to our tasks, while freeing us from physical locations. Work is almost impossible to disconnect from, yet it means less to the next generation.”

Mossberger also dismissed the theory that RTO mandates were, in fact, being used as a redundancy tool, claiming that the negative impact would be overwhelming for organisations.

“In the future, there will be two camps of organisations. Those that embrace new ways of working, including ideas like hybrid work models and the four-day week. And those that cling to the past on the auspices of collaboration, creativity and culture. Workers will vote with their feet,” Mossberger said.

“Some suggest that is the point of the organisation … to use an RTO mandate instead of a layoff to accomplish the same end goal. I personally do not believe that is the case, as policies like this will continue to negatively impact the individuals who stay in addition to chasing off the ones who were unwilling to comply.”

As the terrain for flexibility becomes more contentious, accusations of deceptive schemes will only increase as employees continue to question the legitimate reason for an RTO mandate.

The decision to drive such a wedge between employees and employers under the guise of building “team culture” could be deemed an ironic venture, so it’s no surprise that workers are beginning to draw their own conclusions as to why.