The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Is Your Employer Wrongfully Treating You as an Independent Contractor to Avoid Employment Standards?

by David Doorey May 12, 2011
written by David Doorey May 12, 2011

Originally published May 12, 2011
There’s a story in the Toronto Star this morning about the launch of a campaign called Stop Wage Theft by the Workers’ Action Centre in Toronto.  The Toronto Star piece focuses on the story of a group of workers who claim unpaid wages from a company called Com-Kote Inc.   Com-Kote says it doesn’t have to pay ESA requirements because none of these people are their employees.  They are all “independent contractors”.  They are self-employed painters running their own businesses.  Com-Kote entered into a commercial contract with these other businesses.  So there is no employment contract at all.  And since there is no employment contract, Com-Kote can withhold payment for services performed whenever it decides it doesn’t like the quality of work.
This is a common situation.  Many businesses try to avoid the obligations associated with employing people by treating workers as independent contractors.  It often works, since in most cases the workers will just accept that arrangement in order to get the work, because they like the idea of being in business for themselves, or because they don’t realize that they would be entitled to employment standards protections if they are “employees”.  However, when the workers do challenge the arrangement to obtain their ESA entitlements, they are often successful because many of these arrangements are shams. As the saying goes (sort of), if a person walks like an employee, and quacks like an employee,  they’re probably an “employee”.
The Com-Kote story reminds me of a decision of the OLRB from a few years ago called Ilaris Corp v. Gadzevych.  Ilaris was also in the construction industry, and hired workers and called them “independent contractors”.   In fact, Ilaris had about 45 people working for it yet claimed only 3 were employees:  the owner, and two directors.  Everyone else doing work for Ilaris was in business for him or herself.   After the work was performed, Ilaris withheld payment from some workers because it said the work was unsatisfactory.  Two of Ilaris’s workers filed ESA complaints claiming unpaid wages.  Ilaris argued, just like Com-Kote, that the workers were not their employees and therefore they could withhold payment if they like.
The Labour Board ruled that the two Ilaris workers were “employees” within the meaning of the ESA.   The definition in the ESA is not very helpful.  It says this:

“employee” includes,
(a) a person, including an officer of a corporation, who performs work for an employer for wages,
(b) a person who supplies services to an employer for wages,
(c) a person who receives training from a person who is an employer, as set out in subsection (2), or
(d) a person who is a homeworker,
and includes a person who was an employee;

In the Ilaris case, the Board reviewed the various tests that have been used over the years to decide if workers are employees or independent contractors.  It started by noting that the ESA is intended to be interpreted broadly, so as to include as employees as many people as possible.  A key question is:  Whose business is it?
A person who is self-employed usually looks like they are in business for themselves.  That means, for example, that they get their own customers, they can hire other people to do the work for them, they can do work for various clients, they own their own tools and equipment, they determine how work is performed.  These conditions are not always present, but the more they describe the situation, the more likely the person is self-employed.  In the Ilaris case, the workers showed no indicia of being in business for themselves.  Here’s what the Board ruled:

In my view, it is clear that Mr. Chorikov was not an independent contractor but rather an employee who was being paid on a piece rate basis.  His labour was an integral part of Ilaris’ business.  Ilaris… found the work, bid on the work, and contracted to perform the work.  Ilaris provided the materials.  While Mr. Chorikov was hired for a fixed amount per project, and not on an hourly rate, he was not free to substitute someone else to perform the work.  Indeed, Ilaris… assigned Mr. Chorikov to perform specific tasks.  Mr. Chorikov did not hire or supervise others.  There is no sense in which he can be described as being in business for himself.  Rather, his activities were controlled by Ilaris. Accordingly, I find that he is an employee within the meaning of the Act and not an independent contractor.

If workers are “employees”, then the ESA applies.  That means all wages must be paid, including overtime, holiday pay, and termination and severance pay.  It also means that wages cannot be withheld on the basis that the employer doesn’t like the quality of the work. Section 13 of the ESA prohibits employers from withholding wages for “faulty work” (s. 13(5)(b)).  An employer must pay the wages, but it can dismiss the worker for poor performance.
Note also that a clause in a contract saying “You are not an employee.  You are an independent contractor” usually means very little.  Otherwise, an employer could just call everyone an independent contractor completely avoid employment laws, as the Labour Board noted in another recent case called Greypoint Properties:

an employer cannot decide that a person is an independent contractor, any more than an employer and an employee can agree that the relationship is one of “independent contractor”.  Whether someone is an “employee” or an “independent contractor” is a legal conclusion, based on a determinations made from the factual circumstances, having regard to the purposes for which the question is being asked.

That’s some good news for employees confronted by one of the companies that wants to have no employees.  If an employee is given a contract saying they are an “independent contractor”, and they fear that arguing about it will cause them to lose the job, they can agree to the contract but later file an Employment Standards Act complaint alleging that they are in fact an “employee”.   The fact that the employer would like you to be an independent contractor means nothing.   If you look and feel like an employee, there is a good chance that you are, regardless of what your employer calls you.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Dismissal of Human Rights Complaints for Delay
next post
No "Tort of Privacy" at Work. But is there a Contractual Right to Privacy at Work?

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
9h

I can’t believe that Almost Famous came out 23 years ago.

Time is flying by.

Reply on Twitter 1622776388179705859 Retweet on Twitter 1622776388179705859 3 Like on Twitter 1622776388179705859 14 Twitter 1622776388179705859
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
10h

I had an LLM student who had a part-time job phantom writing labor arbitration decisions based on arbitrator’s notes and instructions.

Like law clerks do for judges (except parties don’t know about the phantom arb writer).

Is using a machine different? Interesting debate.

Valerio De Stefano @valeriodeste

The crucial part starts on p. 5, where the Court reports the answers to the legal questions they posed to ChatGPT. Then, at the end of p. 6, the Court adopts the arguments given in these answers as grounds for its decision.

Reply on Twitter 1622759377944952834 Retweet on Twitter 1622759377944952834 5 Like on Twitter 1622759377944952834 8 Twitter 1622759377944952834
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
11h

Quebec passed anti-scab legislation in 1977, BC in 1993, & Ontario 1993-95.

Hysterical claims that these laws cause job losses & loss of investment aren't supported by evidence. Businesses just don't like them.

Short 🧵

1/

Seamus O'Regan Jr @SeamusORegan

We’re banning replacement workers, as we said on Oct. 19th.

We’re working with unions and employers to get the balance right.

As agreed, government will introduce legislation by the end of this year.

Reply on Twitter 1622745098088861702 Retweet on Twitter 1622745098088861702 16 Like on Twitter 1622745098088861702 39 Twitter 1622745098088861702
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • 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
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.