Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Is it Good Policy That Temp Agencies are Treated as Employers Under Workers Compensation Legislation?

by David Doorey September 28, 2017
written by David Doorey September 28, 2017

One of the useful takeaways from the Toronto Star’s recent undercover story on Feira Foods was its exposure of how employers use temporary placement agencies to avoid responsibility for workers.   A particular thorn in the side of worker advocates is the policy in Ontario of treating the temporary placement agency as the employer for the purposes of employment regulation and in particular for workers’ compensation purposes.
This latest story by the Star’s Regg Cohn focuses on this issue, noting that the Ontario government seems oddly resistant to the logic of making the business where the worker is actually injured the responsible party for workers’ compensation purposes.
Worker advocate organizations have long argued that the current policy of deeming the temp agency the

Is the Wrong Employer Responsible for Workers' Compensation in Ontario?

Is the Wrong Employer Responsible for Workers’ Compensation in Ontario?


employer is perverse, because: (1) it shifts responsibility for the safety of the jobs to a party (the temp agency) which has zero control over the workplace itself, skewing the experience rating system and the incentives to create safe workplaces; and (2) it creates a financial incentive for businesses to use “perma-temps rather than hire their own employees, since the cost of workers’ compensation (including premium payments) and responsibility for finding alternative work are hived off to a third party.
The Workers’ Action Centre and Parkdale Community Legal Services (where I was once a student in the workers’ rights division and years later the Osgoode Dean’s Rep on the Board of Directors) explained the matter this way:

Employers generally pay WSIB premiums based on experience rating – higher or lower premiums are based on an employer’s accident record. In the case of assignment workers, it is the agency that is deemed the employer and pays WSIB premiums. These premiums are generally lower than those of the client. Assignment workers’ injuries occur at the client company, under the control of the client company. Yet the client company does not face the consequences of injuries and accidents involving assignment workers, as the experience rating premium costs are born by the agency not the company. In effect, this creates economic incentives for clients to use assignment workers for more dangerous work. Further, we believe that this shifting of employer liabilities for WSIB premiums is one of the services that agencies provide to its clients, and is allowed by the current statutes.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Act defines a “temporary help agency” as “an employer referred to in section 72 who primarily engages in the business of lending or hiring out the services of its workers to other employers on a temporary basis for a fee”
Section 72 then provides:  If an employer temporarily lends or hires out the services of a worker to another employer, the first employer shall be deemed to be the employer of the worker while he or she is working for the other employer.  
The government could easily change the status quo by deeming the employer to which the temp workers are assigned the employer.   This would have the twin benefit of placing responsibly on the party that actually controls the risks of injury and remove the financial incentive to use temp agency workers rather than hire their own employees.  Given that the stated objective of the present project of work law reforms is to encourage more and better jobs and to address the rising precarity of work, this seems like a no brainer of an idea.
And yet the Liberals are resistant.
Question for Discussion
Can you think of any arguments against the proposal to deem the company where the work is performed the employer for the purposes of workers’ compensation responsibilities?
Both the business lobby and the temp placement industry have argued against changing the present model that places responsibility for workers’ compensation on the temp agency.  What arguments do you think they make?  Can you find any publications where those arguments are set out?
 

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Can an Employer Refuse a "Discretionary" Bonus to a Terminated Employee?
next post
To My American Friends: How Canada's High Court Dealt with a Janus-Like Union Dues Challenge

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.