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

With Power Comes Responsibility, Tim Hortons Learns

by David Doorey November 10, 2015
written by David Doorey November 10, 2015

November 10 2015

Cross-reference to  Law of Work text:   Chapter 2: The Law of What? Employment, Self-Employment, and Everything in Between

With power comes responsibility.  Is that from Spiderman?
The location of power and control is certainly a theme in the law of work.  For example, although courts and tribunals no longer apply a strict “control test” for

Is Corporate Tim Hortons Responsible for Actions of Franchisees?

Is Corporate Tim Hortons Responsible for Actions of Franchisees?


deciding when an employment relationship exists, there is no doubt that the more a business controls the when, how, and where of work performance, the more likely that business will be ruled to be the employer of the worker. [See 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries]
The importance of power and control in work law sometimes poses a dilemma for business.  Often, businesses seek to arrange their affairs so as to avoid the application of protective employment laws to their relationship with workers.  For example, they might draft a contract that says, “You are an independent contractor and not an employee”.  The objective of that clause is to oust the application of employment laws designed to protect workers, such as employment standards laws including minimum wages, overtime, and vacation pay.
Courts and tribunals know this game and they have frequently looked past those clauses and ruled that workers are employees notwithstanding the contract says expressly that they are not (see e.g. Braiden v. La-Z-Boy Canada)  If an employer could avoid application of the entirety of employment protection laws by simply including in every contract with a worker an “independent contractor clause” then those laws would be meaningless.

Therefore, businesses learn that in order to avoid employment protection laws, they need to actually relinquish control over the way in which the work is performed.  But that is sometimes hard, because in fact the business wants control.  Business leaders want the power of an employer, but not the responsibility.

The Employer’s Dilemma:  To Control or Not to Control?
Consider a case I argued years ago.  I represented an Ottawa taxi driver who had his throat slit by a ‘customer’ late one night.  He suffered serious trauma and could never drive a taxi again.  He claimed workers’ compensation after the attack, but was denied on the basis that he was a self-employed entrepreneur and not an employee of  Blue Line Taxi, the company for whom he drove.  I represented the employee in the appeal to the Tribunal.
Blue Line argued that the worker owned his own car, set his own hours, paid all hisblue line own expenses, was not paid a wage, and treated himself as a business for the purposes of taxes.   It claimed that all Blue Line did was provide a dispatch service for a fee.  All this made the driver look like he was in business for himself. However, Blue Line had also insisted on enforcing a long list of rules against anyone driving under the Blue Line banner, including a dress code and a code of conduct for dealing with customers.  Failure to abide by Blue Line’s rules could result in “discipline”.
Because Blue Line retained consider control over how the work was performed, the Tribunal ruled that Blue Line was the driver’s employer and benefits were payable.  Blue Line didn’t want to be the employer of taxi drivers, but it also wanted standardized rules to protect its brand.
The Tim Hortons Case
A similar issue arose in an interesting case decided this week in British Columbia called United Steelworkers v. Tim Hortons.
The case involves a human rights complaint filed by the United Steelworkers union on behalf of a group of workers from the Philippines brought to B.C. under the controversial Temporary Foreign Worker Program to staff a Tim Horton’s franchise in B.C.’s interior.  The case was filed against both the owner of the franchise where the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred (the franchisee), and corporate Tim Hortons who issues the franchises (franchisor).  Here’s a good story describing the background.
An interesting aspect of this case is that it was brought by a union that does not actually have bargaining rights at the store.  This is the sort of good work that unions should be doing, representing vulnerable workers who lack voice outside of formal collective bargaining.  Sadly, Tim Hortons argued that unions shouldn’t be permitted to advocate on behalf of vulnerable workers when they don’t have collective bargaining rights.  The Tribunal does not directly address that argument, and so it may reappear as the case continues.
The decision is a preliminary one, meaning that the Tribunal doesn’t decide whether Tim Horton’s actually discriminated against the workers.  Rather, the issue in this decision was whether corporate Tim Hortons (the franchisor) could be held liable in human rights for the discriminatory actions of a franchisee.  The Tribunal rules that it could.
Corporate Tim Hortons argued that all it does is sell franchises and that the treatment of workers is the sole responsibility of the franchisee.  In other words, Tim Hortons does not want to be liable for employment law violations committed by its franchisees.
However, like Blue Line Taxi, Tim Hortons has a keen interest in protecting its brand.  A rogue franchisee who commits grave violations of employment laws poses a threat to that brand.  Therefore, Tim Hortons is not actually prepared to wash its hands of the employment practices of its franchisees.  It retains control.
For example, the evidence indicates that Tim Hortons helped arrange for the temporary workers, maintains a Tim Horton’s wide harassment policy, and conducts regular audits of the franchisees to check, among other things, human resources practices and legal compliance.  In fact, it turns out that Tim Horton’s brought the hammer down on this very franchisee several months after the Steelworkers complaint was filed for employment standards violations.
The Tribunal ruled that a franchisor like Tim Hortons can be held liable under the B.C. Human Rights Code for violations committed by a  franchisee when it exercises sufficient control to influence the franchisee’s behaviour and yet fails to do so.  Therefore, the case will proceed to a hearing.
Issues for Discussion
1.  Can you think of any arguments why a union should not be permitted to bring a human rights complaint on behalf of a worker of a non-union employer?
2.  The franchise business model has been a target of  worker advocates for a long time.  The challenge is that individual franchisees (think coffee shops) often operate on very small profit margins and in an environment in which so much is controlled by the franchisor.  The wealth and power often reside above the franchisee level, and yet work laws are designed to target the franchisee and not the franchisor.  This dynamic makes it very difficult for workers to win sustainable improvements in working conditions, wages, and benefits.
Can you imagine a way that employment standards laws could reach above the level of the franchisee and hold the franchisor responsible for compliance with legal standards?

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
Will the Ban on TTC Strikes Be Ruled Unconstitutional?
next post
CBC Radio Documentary on 22 Month Strike at Crown Holdings and Labour Policy

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
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
josheidelson Josh Eidelson @josheidelson ·
6h

Scoop: Labor Board prosecutors have concluded Starbucks illegally refused to fairly negotiate at dozens of newly-unionized cafes across the country https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-28/starbucks-illegally-refused-to-bargain-on-zoom-nlrb-lawyer-says Starbucks’ refusal to negotiate if some workers participated via Zoom was illegal, NLRB general counsel says

Reply on Twitter 1640509028567506950 Retweet on Twitter 1640509028567506950 140 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 412 Twitter 1640509028567506950
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
alexisshotwell Alexis Shotwell @alexisshotwell ·
11h

This morning the president of @Carleton_U sent out a note underlining his understanding of “how painful labour disruptions can be to communities,” pleading for us to be calm and respectful and to support our students at the end of term. 1/

Reply on Twitter 1640430514627551256 Retweet on Twitter 1640430514627551256 84 Like on Twitter 1640430514627551256 242 Twitter 1640430514627551256
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
12h

Oh fun.

‘AI is on the cusp of taking control: This is how it may all go wrong’

https://apple.news/AWvPXyT8WTVOs5byQvVk-3Q

Reply on Twitter 1640408084093779989 Retweet on Twitter 1640408084093779989 1 Like on Twitter 1640408084093779989 3 Twitter 1640408084093779989
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.