Determining the "Real Employer" - IPG-068
Effective date: April 3, 2006
Revised date: February 14, 2023
On this page
- Issue
- Background
- Application
- Determining the real employer
- Jurisdiction
- Conclusion
- Appendix A: List of factors used to determine the real employer in a tripartite relationship
- Appendix B: List of cases
Issue
Many businesses use temporary help/employment agencies to meet their requirement for workers. These agencies are intermediaries, in that they supply businesses with the services of the workers they recruit. The legal relationship between the agency, their client and the worker is not always clearly defined. Therefore, guidance to identify the "real employer" is needed. This Interpretations, Policies and Guidelines (IPG) will assist in identifying where the employer/employee relationship exists within the tripartite relationship.
Background
Temporary help/employment agencies supply qualified workers to businesses under varying terms and conditions. The agency therefore creates a "tripartite" relationship consisting of the worker, the agency, and the client business who uses the temporary help services. Accordingly, the worker in this type of relationship is in a tripartite relationship.
Application
Part III of the Canada Labour Code (the Code) applies to federally regulated employees who have an employer/employee relationship. This includes persons often referred to as “interns”.
On September 1, 2020, changes to the Code recognizing “interns” and “student interns” came into force. Individuals seeking to obtain knowledge or experience via an internship that is not part of an educational program, often referred to as “interns”, are not considered “employees”. However, they are treated as employees for the purpose and application of the Code. They also receive all labour standards protections, including the right to be paid at least minimum wage.
Students undertaking internships that fulfil the requirements of an educational program are known as “student interns”. Student interns are also not considered "employees” because they are primarily in the workplace to acquire knowledge and/or experience. Student interns, who may be unpaid, are not entitled to the full range of labour standards protections. They are entitled to certain protections under the Standards for Work-Integrated Learning Activities Regulations.
The Code and associated regulations therefore govern bipartite relationships that go beyond that of an employer and employee.
Determining the real employer
A number of factors are used in determining who the real employer is. Appendix A is a useful guide.
This may be accomplished by imagining a continuum with:
- the worker in the middle
- the agency employer on one side, and
- the client business on the other
As the facts of the relationship are examined, assessed and weighed, the employee will ultimately move to one side of the continuum. They will be classified as an employee of the agency or the client business. Questionnaires will be used to assist with the gathering of facts to complete the assessment.
A comprehensive approachFootnote i shall be taken when attempting to identify the real employer. This will be done to consider which party exercises the most control over all aspects of the work on the facts of each caseFootnote ii. The criteria of legal subordination and integration into the business are significant, "they must not be used as exclusive criteria for identifying the real employer"Footnote iii.
- The criterion of legal subordination encompasses the notion of actual control by a party over the worker's daily work activities. The control test "…purports to examine who controls the work and how, when and where it is to be done."Footnote iv The aspect of control may be broken out into several elements. It is the overall relationship that shall be examined
- The integration test (discussed in Pointe-Claire v. Quebec) requires the consideration of all relevant factors such as:
- the party exercising direction and control over the workers performing the work
- the party bearing the burden of remuneration
- the party imposing discipline
- the party hiring the worker
- the party with the authority to dismiss the worker
- the party which is perceived to be the employer by the worker
- the existence of an intention to create an employer/employee relationship
Jurisdiction
It shall be determined if the business where the worker is assigned, and/or the agency employer, falls under federal or provincial jurisdiction. This is because, when dealing with an issue under the Code, it is imperative that the work, undertaking or business is subject to federal jurisdiction.
Assessing the information and making a decision
The identity of the real employer shall be made using factual determination, with specific reference to each situation. No single factor among those contemplated shall be, in itself, determinative.
When analyzing the information gathered, the Labour Program shall look beyond the form of a transaction and analyze its substance. For example, who is responsible for:
- the recruitment process
- candidate selection
- training
- remuneration, and
- exercising formal discipline
Even though the agency may implement disciplinary actions, the client business could regulate the worker's daily responsibilities. Consequently, this could move the worker to the client business side of the continuum. Although remuneration may originate from the agency, the contract between the latter and the client business could dictate the amount to be paid. Accordingly, this may move the worker to the client business side of the continuum.
Weighing the facts
Weighing the facts is a crucial aspect of deciding who the real employer is. The evidence for each of the factors in Appendix A shall be reviewed and each category will be weighed in making the decision. Many of the facts, such as recruitment and training, may indicate that the employee was that of the agency. However, more weight may be given to facts such as direction and control, ultimately leading the employee to be that of the client business.
Once the total relationship has been examined and assessed, the parties must be notified of the decision in writing.
Other tripartite relationships – road transport
In the road transport industry, there may also be tripartite relationships involving intermediaries between:
- the road transport carrier company (the client), and
- the driver (the worker)
These intermediary businesses may be an agency or may be another road transport business such as an owner-operator.
In these cases, the tripartite relationship consists of:
- the road transport company or carrier is considered the larger motor carrier business that provides for the transportation of goods or passengers by motor vehicle. In most cases these companies are larger motor carriers. They also may have their own trucks, which their own workers use. They are considered the client in the relationship
- the intermediary business, which can be an employment agency or another road transport company:
- agencies operating within the road transport sector may specialize in providing drivers to road transport companies. These driver service agencies may be seen as an intermediary business between the road transport carrier (the client) and the driver (the worker)
- owner-operators are small businesses that offer transportation services to the road transport carriers (client) for an agreed amount of money. They own or lease their truck(s) and are responsible for their truck expenses. They may hire and pay drivers to assist them with their business. As well, the owner-operator may be the driver for their own business. In the tripartite relationship, the owner-operator that has a driver or drivers, may be seen as an intermediary business between the road transport carrier (the client) and the driver (the worker)
- the driver is the worker and operates a motor vehicle
The legal relationship in these situations may not be clearly defined. Therefore, the concepts, principles, and questions contained in this policy may be applied as part of the investigation to determine the real employer.
Student interns fulfilling the requirements of their educational program
A student intern is carrying out their internship to fulfill the requirements of their educational program. The kinds of activities that would meet the requirements of their educational program must be described in documents produced by the student intern’s educational institution. The documents must be provided to the employer prior to the start of the internship.
A student intern must only perform activities in the workplace that align with those identified in the internship documents.
If a student intern is subject to a tripartite relationship (for example, a student intern is performing activities for an owner-operator of the company that was named on the internship agreement), the Labour Program will investigate the “real employer” relationship. They will use the approach and principles described in this IPG.
Although the Labour Program would be making a determination on the “real employer” it is important to keep in mind that a student intern does not have an “employer” per se. This is because he is not engaged in an employer/employee relationship. The Labour Program determines who the real employer is for the sole purpose of:
- determining which employer the student intern is performing activities for, and
- whether the internship with the employer fulfills the requirements of their educational program
At the conclusion of the investigation, the student intern may be treated as an employee under the Code if it is determined that:
- the student did not perform activities in the workplace for the employer who was identified on the internship documents, and
- the internship did not fulfill the requirements of the student intern’s educational program
Conclusion
The Code governs the relations between bipartite relationships which involve:
- an employee and an employer, or
- an intern or student intern and an employer for whom the intern or student intern is performing activities
The characteristics of an employer may be shared in a tripartite relationship between 2 separate employer entities, the agency and the client business. In order to determine who the "real employer" is, the total relationship shall be examined and assessed. Bear in mind that no 1 factor is determinative and there is an exhaustive list of factors that must be examined.
Appendix A: List of factors used to determine the real employer in a tripartite relationship
The following factors will be considered when determining who the real employer is in a tripartite relationship. Which party:
- provided work direction to the complainant
- the absences were reported to and which party approved the absences of the complainant
- approved time off for the complainant
- conducted the complainant’s performance evaluation
- authorized overtime
- provided training
- exercised control over the complainant’s work
- paid the complainant
- provided work assignments to the complainant
- hired the complainant
- had the power to suspend or dismiss the complainant
- the complainant integrated in (for example, wearing a uniform with a company logo)
Appendix B: List of cases
- Adecco Employment Services Ltd.[2010] CIRB No. 528 & 556
- Bernshire Mobile Maintenance Ltd. v. Canada Labour Relations Board, [1986] 1 F.C.
- Blackburn v. Canada Post, [2000] F.C.J. No. 780
- Canadian Air Line Flight Attendants' Association (Canadian Union of Public Employees - Airline Division) v. Nationair (Nolisair International Inc.) and Canadian Air Personnel and Canadian Aviation Services International, [1987] CLRB No. 630 (Available in French only)
- Global Helicopter Pilots Assn. v.CHC Global Operations (2008)Inc.[2009], CIRB No. 459; affirmed 2010 C.C.L.C. 220-028 (F.C.A.)
- Les Entreprises Motex Inc. et al., [2001] CIRB No. 133
- National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Penske Logistics and Direct Driver Personnel; ADS Employment Services, [2001] CIRB No. 146
- Mackie Moving Systems Corp. [2002] CCRI No. 156
- Mohawks of the (Bay of Quinte)Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, [2000] CIRB No. 89
- Pointe-Claire (City) v. Quebec (Labour Court), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1015
- Wolf v. Canada, [2002] 4 F.C. 396
- Zoldy v. OK Transportation Limited, [2002] C.L.A.D. No. 58
Page details
- Date modified: