“Worker” vs “independent operators” distinction clarified in Newfoundland and Labrador workers’ compensation decision
Is a worker under a contract “of” service or contract “for” service? The former means a worker is an employee whereas the latter means a worker is an independent contractor. The answer to that question has significant consequences for employers and workers alike. In the context of the Newfoundland and Labrador Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act (“the Act”), it determines whether employers must pay premiums for its workers, which are often significant.
As some businesses struggle to make ends meet with these rising costs, WorkplaceNL’s Injury Fund is funded by 123.4 per cent from employer premiums.
There has been an increased trend in which employers have to pay premiums for workers properly classified as independent operators – even in contexts where the employers do not even have “workplaces” where workers could be injured. We expect this to become more common as remote workplaces increase.
Stewart McKelvey St. John’s lawyers Twila Reid and John Samms successfully argued before the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division (“WHCRD”) at External Review that insurance sales agents under contract to sell insurance policies to customers are not “workers” as defined under the Act – they were properly considered “Independent Operators”, otherwise known as independent contractors. This result overturned two prior lower level decisions whereby WorkplaceNL and the WHCRD Internal Division held these sales agents were “workers”.
In the decision, the review commissioner determined that that the workers were not “workers” under a contract of service because:
- The employer’s business model was such that the initial sale of insurance was separate and apart from the rest of the business – which was the renewal of already existing business. The role of the agents in the employers business was therefore separate and distinct – the sales agents made first contact, but the employer had the burden of maintaining that business. Viewed through this lens, the first-contact sales agents were not necessarily integral to the business’ success.
- More importantly, the employer did not exercise sufficient control over the agents in how they conducted their business, their right to sell products for multiple companies, and their overhead costs for which they were responsible. The decision is noteworthy and may be of interest to employers across Atlantic Canada given the legislative similarities across Atlantic Canada.
If you feel your business may have been wrongly classified for workers’ compensation purposes, the Labour and Employment group of Stewart McKelvey would be pleased to assist you.
This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
Archive
Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…
Read MoreJonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…
Read MorePeter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…
Read MoreBruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…
Read MoreIn preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…
Read MorePerlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3 the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…
Read More