The criteria

During the past years, the courts have had the opportunity on several occasions, through the application of various laws, to examine the notions of employee, artisan, self-employed worker, subcontractor, dependent contractor, independent contractor. The result is an abundance of case law, sometimes contradictory, where it can become difficult to navigate.

Although the Parity Committee generally takes into account the criteria developed by this extensive case law, it should be noted that we apply the specific case law related to the interpretation of the notion of employee according to An act respecting collective agreement decrees. This is the reason why a worker could have the status of self-employed worker under a certain law, and still be considered as an employee under the decree.

The provisions of the Act are of public order. Consequently, the status of a worker does not depend on the verbal agreement or the written contract between him and a building service contractor, but on the facts and on the evaluation of these facts according to the criteria developed by the courts as to the interpretation of the definition of employee specified in article 1 (j) of the Act.

It is very important to note that the definition of “employee” according to article 1 (j) has been repeatedly recognized by the courts as being broader than the definitions specified in other laws.

This definition reads as follows:

“employee” means any apprentice, unskilled labourer or workman, skilled workman, journeyman, artisan, clerk or employee, working individually or in a crew or in partnership;

In our industry, the artisan is generally defined as:

  • a person who works alone or in a team with members of his family, who has the following characteristics:
  • his hourly or flat rate remuneration depends on the number of hours to be worked;
  • he provides the products and equipment;
  • he determines his schedules according to the nature of the maintenance work to be carried out;
  • he establishes his working methods;
  • he may be registered for GST and QST
  • he takes some financial risk;
  • his activities are limited to generating income for himself and members of his family

This is what is generally called a self-employed worker. This means that a self-employed worker hired by a building service contractor will generally be considered an employee within the meaning of the Act and the Decree.

According to the courts, the distinction between an employee within the meaning of the Decree and an independent contractor (actual subcontractor) is the ability to organize his business for the purpose of profit, that is to say the acceptance and remuneration of risk.

In order to establish which side a worker is on, the courts analyze his profile according to the facts, by applying several criteria.

Main criteria:

  1. Is the worker economically dependent on the main contractor?
  2. Can the worker negotiate directly with the clients?
  3. Is he speculating on the workforce?
  4. Is he really autonomous and independent, particularly in the administrative management of his business (invoicing, setting the price, etc.)

Secondary criteria:

  1. Who provides products and equipment?
  2. Who decides which products and equipment to use?
  3. Who selects product and equipment suppliers?
  4. Who controls the inventory of products needed?
  5. Who determines which work methods to use?
  6. Does the worker have specific expertise or equipment for the work to be done that the main contractor does not have?

IMPORTANT: These criteria are cumulative and not exhaustive. The status of a worker can only be confirmed by a verification of the Parity Committee. Do not hesitate to contact us for more information.

Non-exhaustive list of case law relating to the definition of employee:

Comité paritaire de l’entretien d’édifices publics c. La confédération des caisses populaires et d’économie Desjardins du Québec, [1985] CA 17

Confection Coger c. Comité paritaire du vêtement pour dames, [1986] R.J.Q. 153 (C.A.)

Caisse populaire immaculée conception de Sherbrooke c. Comité paritaire de l’entretien d’édifices publics, 1991 CanLII 3333 (QCCA)

Groupe d’entretien Salibec Inc. c. Québec, 1993 CanLII 4298

Comité paritaire de l’entretien d’édifices publics, région de Montréal c. Servitout Inc., 2013 QCCQ 7359

Comité paritaire de l’entretien d’édifices publics, région de Montréal c. Crêtes, 2007 QCCQ 8484

Comité paritaire de l’entretien d’édifices publics, région de Montréal c.  Simon Bluteau Rondeau, 2010 QCCQ 7287

Comité paritaire de l’entretien d’édifices publics, région de Montréal c. Lemay-Nage Claire, s.e.n.c., 2006 QCCQ 6385

Comité paritaire de l’entretien d’édifices publics, région de Montréal c. P.R. Maintenance, 2012 QCCQ 14501

Comité paritaire de l’industrie de l’automobile des régions Saguenay-Lac St-Jean c. Soucy 60 Q.A.C.

Modern Concept d’entretien inc. c. Comité paritaire de l’entretien d’édifices publics de la région de Québec, 2019 CSC 28 (CanLII)

Parity Committee for the Building Services (Montréal Region) c. 4523423 Canada Inc. (Sani-Vie-Tech), 2011 QCCQ 12209

9072-7710 Québec Inc. (E.E.R) c. Comité paritaire de l’entretien d’édifices publics de la région de Québec,