Contracts of employment | Acas advice and guidance | Acas
This is an example of a Consultancy Agreement in English. . this Agreement does not create an employer-employee relationship between the Consultant and . If the employer has certain policies regarding employment or has or your employer may terminate the employment relationship at any time. Although an employment relationship is based on a civil law private contract between an employer and employee, The best way for an employer to ensure the letter reaches the recipient is to deliver it by hand or to use recorded delivery.
The policy objectives of the Canada Labour Code are to ensure minimum employment standards; and to prevent accidents and injuries to health arising out of the course of employment within Federal Jurisdiction. Quebec Labour Court 1 S. Common Law tests in determining an employment relationship The definition of "employee" and "employer" contained in the specific statutes is not usually helpful in determining an employment relationship between two parties.
So when disputes arise as to whether a person is an employee under a certain statute, courts and tribunals have resorted to the common law and civil law tests to determine employee status.
Determining the Employer/Employee Relationship - IPG-069
The following "tests" are only pieces of evidence that shall be weighed, at times differently, depending on the situation, to determine whether a worker is part of the payer's business or in business on his own account Refer to Appendix B for a listing of all the cases cited. The full text of the document is available at the address provided in the appendix. The Control Test This was the first attempt to clarify the relationship between a worker and a payer.
It was set out in Regina v. The Control Test was simply assessing the presence or absence of control a manager or supervisor might or might not have over their worker.
Walker, 27 L. Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd. Control in itself is not always conclusive. MacDonald and Evans, This approach attempts to find if the service being provided by the worker is performed as an integral part of the business, or done on behalf of the business but not integrated into that business. This "test" is best explained by an excerpt from the decision: MacDonald and Evans,  1 T.
Making a determination for the purpose of the Canada Labour Code To help examine the issue of who is an employee or an independent contractor, it may be useful to envision a continuum. On one extreme end of the continuum would fall a worker who is clearly an employee. For example, a person who is hired to be a mechanic, is paid by the hour and is closely supervised by a foreman, would be classified as an employee.
On the other end of this continuum is a worker who will obviously be an independent contractor. This would be a worker who has his own company and will perform work for a variety of companies. This worker is contracted for a specific task of upgrading a company's computer software, and who is paid a specified amount for the job, signs a contract for a specific time period, and is not supervised, but reports his progress to the department manager.
The points noted are not an exhaustive list. The difference is clear between the employee and the independent contractor in the example demonstrated in Appendix A.
However, attempting to classify the workers in the middle of this continuum is where it becomes complicated. It is because the workers that fall in the middle of this continuum have characteristics of both an employee and an independent contractor, and are therefore not so readily classified. Gathering of the information In order to make a decision if a worker is an employee or independent contractor, detailed information on how the relationship is structured must be gathered and assessed.
The Court first states that the level of control will always be a factor, but the central question is: Whether the worker provides his own equipment. Can the worker hire their own helpers? Can the worker contract out work to other contractors? Whether the worker can provide services to more than one payer.
Is the worker part of the employer's organization? Does the worker have to report to the work site each day? The financial investment made by the worker. The extent to which the worker manages that investment. Is the worker exposed to personal financial risk in carrying out the work? The worker's opportunity for profit, or risk of loss Who is liable for damage or quality of the work?
It is not exhaustive and does not replace the law found in the Employer Health Tax Act and related regulations. Employers are required to pay Employer Health Tax EHT on remuneration paid to employees who report for work at a permanent establishment in Ontario and employees who do not report for work at a permanent establishment but who are paid from or through the employer's permanent establishment in Ontario.
Employee is defined to include officers, directors and former employees.
Ontario previously accepted federal Canada Pension Plan CPP and Employment Insurance EI rulings regarding the employment status of workers that were issued either in the current or the four immediately preceding years and applied them only to the hirers and the workers named in the rulings.
The key question is whether or not the person is engaged to perform services as a person in business on his or her own account, or as an employee.
The employer has the right to decide where, when and how the work is to be done. The worker is in business in his or her own right and provides services to other businesses as an independent contractor. The worker is not normally required to perform the services personally. To determine the legal relationship between the parties, Ontario examines and analyzes the terms and conditions of the worker's employment as they relate to the following four factors: It is important to note that there is no set formula as to the application of these and other factors.
The relevant weight of each factor will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Ontario also considers the intent of the parties as evidenced in the terms of a written contract and the mutual understanding of the parties at the time of entering into the contractual relationship.
Such contracts will only be given weight if they accurately reflect the relationship between the parties. Control The control test is used to determine whether a person is in a position to direct or require not only what work is to be done, but also how it is to be done.
The payer assigns specific tasks that define the real framework within which the work is to be done. The payer exercises control if he or she has the right to hire or fire, and decide where, when and how the work will be done.
If such is the case, then the payer clearly exercises control over the worker, who may then be considered to be an employee for EHT purposes. It is not necessary that control actually be exercised, only that it can be exercised.
The control test may not be determinative when examining the employment of professionals who, because of their expertise and specialized training, may need less direction and supervision.
- Content of the notice letter
- Language selection
- Key points
A professional who is subject to limited control and supervision may still be an employee based on other factors. Indicators that the worker may be an employee: