Legal update
McDonald’s, and not just its franchisees, liable for worker treatment
says National Labor Relations Board: should Canadian franchisors
be concerned?
September 2014
Employment and labour
The general counsel of the United States’ National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently ruled that McDonald’s
should be considered a joint employer with its franchisees.
This finding, if ultimately upheld, could pave the way for nationwide union organizing of franchisors. It could also signal
a movement away from recognizing a legal separation for labour relations purposes between a franchisor and a
franchisee. The question becomes, could this be a bellwether of similar developments in Canada?
Background
The NLRB is an independent US federal agency charged with overseeing employee rights to organize for the purpose
of collective bargaining. It also makes decisions, like labour boards in Canada, regarding unfair labour practices
alleged to have been committed by employers.
This general counsel ruling that McDonald’s is a joint employer with its franchisees was a preliminary ruling and no
written reasons were released. This ruling was made in the context of a decision on how many of the 181 cases
brought forward by employees alleging that McDonald’s violated their rights have merit. Of these 181 cases, 43 were
found to have merit. If these cases proceed then McDonald’s and its franchisees will be co-respondents.
Common employers in Canada – risks for franchisors
In Canada, labour boards have wrestled with this issue of whether to declare a franchisor and franchisee “related
employers,” a finding similar in effect to the “joint employer” finding recently made by the NLRB’s general counsel
regarding McDonald’s.
The result of a related employer declaration would be to deem the franchisee and the franchisor to be one employer,
bound to each other’s collective bargaining obligations and liable for each other’s conduct in respect of these
obligations.
In Ontario, the Labour Relations Act, 1995, permits the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) to declare two or more
entities “related employers” where they are engaged in associated or related activities or businesses and fall under
common control or direction.
PAGE 2
However, even if these criteria are met, the OLRB retains discretion not to make a related employer declaration. In
deciding whether to exercise its discretion, the OLRB has considered a number of factors, including whether a
declaration would serve to prevent an employer from avoiding collective agreement obligations and generally prevent
the erosion of a bargaining unit. In other words, the OLRB will not seek to extend bargaining rights, but rather to
preserve existing ones.
The OLRB has dealt with related employer applications in the franchise context on a number of occasions.
For example, in Second Cup Ltd, (1993), the OLRB held that the franchisor, Second Cup, and two of its franchisees
were related employers. Accordingly, the collective agreement between the union and Second Cup extended to the
franchisees in relation to renovations done on the coffee shops. The amount of control exercised by Second Cup as
the franchisor over the renovations in the franchised coffee shops was a factor influencing the OLRB’s decision in this
case.
In Sobeys, (2001), however, when faced with an application to declare eight of Sobeys’ franchised retail outlets to be
related employers with Sobeys as franchisor, the OLRB decided that even if the statutory criteria were met, it would not
exercise its discretion to make a related employer declaration. The OLRB noted in making this decision that there was
no erosion of bargaining rights resulting from this franchise arrangement.
While each case is fact specific, it is safe to say a number of factors have emerged that are often considered by a
labour board when deciding whether to grant a related employer declaration:
•
common control and direction as between the franchisor and franchisee (including with respect to
management, finances, operations, human resources and labour relations);
•
common ownership of real property and assets;
•
whether the franchise arrangement is being used to avoid collective bargaining obligations; and
•
whether a related employer declaration would prevent the erosion of existing bargaining rights or whether it
would actually serve to extend bargaining rights (i.e., bargaining rights would be extended to employees
without the need for the union to organize those employees and certify a bargaining unit).
No one factor will be determinative and even if the above factors are present, there may be other issues or factors at
play that lead a labour board to decide that a related employer declaration is not appropriate in the circumstances.
However, as this recent case involving McDonald’s demonstrates, the potential for a related employer declaration is a
real one.
Takeaway for employers operating within a franchise structure
This recent decision by the NLRB’s general counsel regarding McDonald’s indicates a willingness to look behind a
business structure to enforce employee claims and perhaps impose bargaining rights more broadly to include
franchisors. Labour boards in Ontario, and across Canada, have similarly grappled with this issue. Some of the factors
listed above are often those considered when a labour board is deciding a related employer application.
While the McDonald’s ruling may be concerning for some franchisors and franchisees, it serves as a reminder to those
operating within a franchise structure that liability and labour relations obligations may potentially be extended to
encompass both a franchisee and franchisor. Those operating within such a structure are well advised to stay abreast
of these developments and consider the likelihood of such a finding being made concerning their business.
Jennifer Hodgins
John Mastoras
Michael Torrance
PAGE 3
For further information, please contact one of the following lawyers:
> François Côté
Montréal
+1 514.847.4464
francois.cote@nortonrosefulbright.com
> Charles E. Hurdon
Ottawa
+1 613.780.8653
charles.hurdon@nortonrosefulbright.com
> Jocelyn F. Rancourt
Québec
+1 418.640.5003
jocelyn.rancourt@nortonrosefulbright.com
> John Mastoras
Toronto
+1 416.216.3905
john.mastoras@nortonrosefulbright.com
> William J. Armstrong
Calgary
+1 403.267.8255
bill.armstrong@nortonrosefulbright.com
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright & Jaworski LLP,
each of which is a separate legal entity, are members (“the Norton Rose Fulbright members”) of Norton Rose Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein helps coordinate the
activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright members but does not itself provide legal services to clients.
References to “Norton Rose Fulbright”, “the law firm”, and “legal practice” are to one or more of the Norton Rose Fulbright members or to one of their respective affiliates (together “Norton Rose
Fulbright entity/entities”). No individual who is a member, partner, shareholder, director, employee or consultant of, in or to any Norton Rose Fulbright entity (whether or not such individual is
described as a “partner”) accepts or assumes responsibility, or has any liability, to any person in respect of this communication. Any reference to a partner or director is to a member, employee or
consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications of the relevant Norton Rose Fulbright entity.
The purpose of this communication is to provide general information of a legal nature. It does not contain a full analysis of the law nor does it constitute an opinion of any Norton Rose Fulbright entity
on the points of law discussed. You must take specific legal advice on any particular matter which concerns you. If you require any advice or further information, please speak to your usual contact at
Norton Rose Fulbright.
© Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP 2014