Canada: McDonald's: U.S. "Joint Employer" Case Sounds Alarm For Canadian Franchisors

Last Updated: April 20 2016
Article by Brent J. Arnold and Allen V. Craig

An ongoing case in the U.S. has garnered much media attention1 and caused much anxiety for U.S. franchisors.  Canadian franchisors should be worried as well.

The U.S. Proceeding

The case, currently before a New York court, was brought by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and will determine whether McDonald's is a "joint employer" of its franchisees' employees for the purposes of U.S. labour legislation.  The case follows two important developments in U.S. law:

  • The 2014 recommendation by the NLRB's Division of Advice that McDonald's USA, LLC be named a joint employer in several complaints brought by McDonald's employees;2 and
  • An NLRB decision in 2015 in the Browning Ferris case,3 in which a waste management company was found to be a joint employer of its subcontractor's employees.

The Browning Ferris decision immediately prompted speculation that similar rulings might be made against franchisors in general, and fast food franchisors in particular. 4

The thrust of the NLRB's argument in the McDonald's case is that the franchisor controls the working conditions of franchise employees—setting out details ranging from restaurant cleaning procedures, to questions to be asked in the hiring of franchise employees, to minutiae of the food order-taking process—to such a minute degree that, in the words of the NLRB's counsel, "it is responsible for what happens to workers subject to those conditions."5

Could it Happen Here?

The picture in Canada is complicated but it would be fair to say that a principle similar to the argument advanced by the NLRB in the current U.S. case is already at work in certain areas of the law in some Canadian jurisdictions.

In Ontario, for example, the Labour Relations Act, 19956 and itspredecessor(s)(the "LRA") allows "associated or related activities or businesses" to be treated as a "one employer" where they are found to be "under common control or direction."7  In such a scenario, the company related to the actual employer company is deemed to be a "related employer." In 1993, Second Cup (a franchisor bound to a labour union by collective agreement) and its franchisee were found to be "one employer" in connection with grievances under the Act, but only with respect to instances in which the franchisee was performing obligations under franchisor's collective agreement that it was required to perform with the franchisor (in this case, the identification of the two entities as one worked to the disadvantage of the franchisee rather than the franchisor).8 

Labour relations is not the only area of law addressing the concept of "related employer" from a statutory perspective.  In Ontario, the Employment Standards Act, 20009 (the "ESA") will treat separate entities as "one employer" if associated or related activities or businesses are or were carried on by or through an employer and one or more other persons, and the intent or effect in their doing so is or has been to directly or indirectly defeat the intention and purpose of the statute.10 The test would thus not be whether a franchisor exercises control over the franchise workplace, but whether the franchisor and franchisee had structured their relations in order to avoid liability for either under the ESA.  Given that franchisees are standalone businesses, separate in law and in ownership from franchisors and with their own revenue streams and assets, it is nearly impossible to imagine a franchise scenario where the test would apply.  A review of Ontario case law under the ESA reveals no instances in which a franchisor has been held liable for the actions of an franchisee; indeed, it reveals that franchisors are more likely to be found liable when they step out of their normally limited involvement in the businesses and directly assume the functions of the franchisee.11

Canadian common law also recognizes that business entities may be treated as a "common employer" for the purposes of liability for employee claims in civil actions where the businesses act as a "single, integrated unit,"12 typically where companies are aligned vertically or horizontally through ownership.  A company may be found liable for employee claims where it exercises "effective control" over the employees, regardless of whether the employees contracted with a different, legally separate company in the corporate structure.13  The principle does not yet appear to have been applied in the context of a franchisor-franchisee scenario, where the relationship between companies is contractual rather than rooted in common ownership.  While it might not greatly tax the imagination of an activist court to determine that a franchise agreement so extensively controls the franchise workplace as to bring the franchise employees under the franchisor's "effective control," the practical rationale for doing so is weak.  Unlike the common scenario of an intentionally thinly capitalized company with employees, controlled by a parent company in which the assets of the business are hidden, the direct employer in the franchise context is typically a functioning business with its own assets and revenue stream capable of satisfying a civil judgment.

Finally, in Ontario at least, panels have expressed a willingness in principle to find franchisors liable in the human rights context, where the facts of the case warrant such a finding.  Liability may attach to a franchisor where the terms of the franchise agreement, the operational support provided by a franchisor to a franchisee, or the exercise of a franchisee's obligations under the franchise agreement are connected to discriminatory conduct.14  A more recent case states the franchisor will not be liable unless "the franchisor [is] vicariously liable from a contractual perspective or [has] itself committed an act that [is] arguably discriminatory."15  Unlike the "related employer" test under the LRA or the connection-and-intent test under the ESA, the test in human rights cases appears to be one of causation rather than control over workplace conditions.

While the "related employer" and "common employer" concepts work separately in different areas of the law and there is no across-the-board correlation of control via the franchise agreement with liability for the franchisor, the common thread of a notion that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to treat franchisors and franchisees as one opens the door to possible future extensions of the principle.

Consequences of a Joint Employer Regime in Canada

Presuming the worst case scenario—the emergence of a generalized principle of joint responsibility for the actions of franchisees in Canadian law—a number of worrisome consequences come to mind.

Most obviously, franchisors would be forced to defend disputes between employees and franchisees, and face penalties and / or damages awards where employees' complaints succeed.  Franchisors would, in essence, be liable for working conditions over which they have indirect (via remedies against franchisees in their franchise agreements) but not direct control. 

Such decisions would severely circumscribe a main advantage of the franchise model for franchisors, i.e. allowing them to limit their capital and labour costs.  If franchisors are not permitted to use the franchise model to limit their risk, and instead may be put at risk by the behaviour of franchisees, franchisors may be safer owning and operating the businesses themselves.  Otherwise, to limit their risk, franchisors would need to incur the cost of monitoring franchises very closely and exercising contractual remedies against misbehaving franchisees very aggressively.  As noted by the response of the International Franchise Association (IFA) to the 2014 NLRB ruling against McDonald's, such findings also upend years of jurisprudence upholding the franchise model of doing business, frustrate the intent of franchise legislation, and could have a chilling effect on a job growth (the IFA notes that, in the U.S. at least, new business and job growth in the franchise sector had outpaced the non-franchise sector for years16). 

The far more practical alternative to abandoning the franchise model in the face of a joint employer regime would be for franchisors to relax the degree of control exercised over the franchisee's operations in order to avoid rulings such as the one sought by the NLRB in the U.S. case. This, again, would seem to diminish the value of the franchise model.  One great advantage of the franchise model is that it holds out to the consumer the promise of a uniform customer experience, regardless of who owns the restaurant or store.  Eliminating the franchisor's ability to maintain such uniformity through the franchise agreement also reduces the predictability that is part of the attraction for the consumer (a predictability that is especially important in the restaurant context, where cleanliness and food safety are at stake). The dangers in such a scenario are disappointed consumers and damage to the brand.  Nonetheless, as we have recommended before,17 reducing the degree of control exercised in the franchise agreement to only the degree necessary to maintain the integrity of the brand is the best and probably only way of avoiding the consequences of a joint employer regime in Canada, should a more fulsome one emerge.


1 See e.g. J. Weston Whippen, "Is McDonald's Responsible for Its Franchise Workers?," The Atlantic, online:

2 NLRB Office of Public Affairs, "NLRB Office of the General Counsel Authorizes Complaints Against McDonald's Franchisees and Determines McDonald's, USA, LLC is a Joint Employer," online:

3 The text of the NLRB decision is available here:

4 Dave Jamieson, "The Labor Ruling McDonald's Has Been Dreading Just Became a Reality," Huffpost Business, online:

5 Karen Freifeld, "McDonald's squares off against NLRB in worker retaliation trial," Reuters, online:

6 Labour Relations Act, 1995, SO 1995, c 1, Sch A,

7 Labour Relations Act, 1995, SO 1995, c 1, Sch A, at s.1(4).

8 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 785 v. Second Cup Ltd., 1993 CanLII 7903 (ON LRB), at para. 38.

9 Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO 2000, c 41,

10 Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO 2000, c 41, at ss.4(1) and (2).

11 Capital Franchising Ltd. (c.o.b. Jani-King Ottawa), [2014] O.L.R.D. No. 863.

12 For a recent example, see the discussion in King v. 1416088 Ontario Ltd., 2014 ONSC 1445 (CanLII), starting at para. 34.

13 King v. 1416088 Ontario Ltd., 2014 ONSC 1445 (CanLII), at paras. 47 and 40.

14 See e.g. Lindsey v. McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited, 2014 HRTO 372 (CanLII), at para. 10 and Philip v. Giant Tiger Stores, 2009 HRTO 1227 (CanLII), at para. 3.

15 Dacosta v. 2383914 Ontario Inc., 2014 HRTO 1047 (CanLII), at para. 15.

16 International Franchise Association, "IFA Statement on NLRB Declaring McDonald's Corporation a "Joint Employer"," online:

17 Debi M. Sutin, "Are Franchisors Joint Employers with Their Franchisees?," Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
7 Nov 2019, Seminar, Birmingham, UK

Providing content specifically tailored to the needs of GCs and Heads of Legal working in government organisations and their affiliates.

14 Nov 2019, Seminar, London, UK

Providing content specifically tailored to the needs of GCs and Heads of Legal working in government organisations and their affiliates.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions