Skip to content

Proposed Changes to the Employment Standards Act (New Brunswick)

The New Brunswick government is seeking feedback from stakeholders on proposed changes to the Employment Standards Act (“Act”). The proposed changes relate to:

– the statutory minimum wage;

– employment protections for young workers; and

– coverage under the Employment Standards Act.

Minimum Wage

The proposed changes would have the minimum wage indexed to provincial inflation rates as opposed to Canadian inflation rates, as this is thought to provide a better indication of changes to the cost of living in New Brunswick, since the national rates reflect price changes in other parts of the country where some goods have different costs.

Protections for Young Workers

Presently, individuals under the age of 16 are not permitted to work in employment:

– that is or is likely to be unwholesome or harmful to the person’s health, welfare or moral or physical development;

– for more than six hours per day;

– for more than three hours on a school day;

– between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; and

– total hours spent at school and at work must not exceed eight hours per day.

Individuals under the age of 14 are restricted from working in certain industries.

The proposed changes would:

– raise the pertinent age to 18 years old;

– disallow exemptions to the rules pertaining to youth workers;

– increase the age of restrictions from certain industries from under 14 to under 16;

– require the written consent from a parent or legal guardian to employ an individual under the age of 16;

– review the hourly restrictions; and

– review participation in artistic performances to determine whether provision should be added for performers under the age of 16.

The repeal of the exemptions provisions will result in no longer having the flexibility in the system to consider a youth employment situation which may involve exceptional circumstances. The restrictions on the number of hours a person under the age of 16 is permitted to work requires the difficult task of determining the number of hours which is most likely to result in a balance between work, life and school. It also has the potential to reduce income upon which a youth and/or his or her family may rely.

Coverage under the Employment Standards Act

The government is seeking input with respect to three areas of concern:

– clarifying the employment relationship;

– coverage for domestic workers and persons working in a private home; and

– coverage for long-term employees on small farms.

The potential changes to the definition of an employment relationship are of particular interest. At present, there is difficulty in classifying certain individuals as employees or independent contractors. The Act specifically excludes an independent contractor, but the current definition of “employee” in the Act could equally describe the role of an independent contractor in some circumstances.

The courts and labour boards have developed common law tests for determining whether an employment relationship exists. While adding the various factors which have been developed by the courts and labour boards may provide a greater degree of certainty for employers and workers, it could also lead to undue rigidity. In addition, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to create a legislated definition which would apply to all circumstances, particularly in light of the fact-specific nature of any such determination.

The New Brunswick government is accepting submissions from interested parties with respect to these issues until October 7, 2016.

The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions about how this may affect your business, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment practice group.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top