Soumission

Advancing Competitiveness and Productivity Through Flexible Labour Policy

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Importance of Labour Standards to Canada's Foodservice Industry

I. Setting the Bar for Federal Labour Standards

II. Looking at Existing Labour Standards: What Works? What Does Not Work?

III. New Forms of Employment Relationships and Non-Standard Work

IV. Balancing Work and Personal/Family Responsibilities

V. Workplace Productivity

VI. Diversity and Changing Demographics in the Workforce

VII. Modernizing and Clarifying The Code's Enforcement and Administrative Provisions

Summary of Recommendations

Endnotes

Executive Summary

The restaurant and foodservices industry is one of Canada's largest employers, providing jobs for more than one million Canadians. Those jobs have been threatened in recent years by an unprecedented number of challenges, from economic influences like declining tourism and rising fuel prices to legislative changes like minimum wage increases, smoking bans and payroll tax hikes, which have combined to limit sales and business growth in this important sector.

Because of the labour intensive nature of foodservice, the legislative framework surrounding employment standards is of vital interest to the foodservice industry. Labour represents a significant portion of a restaurant operator's costs – 30% on average – and so any changes in employment standards must result in performance and productivity gains and not simply an increase in employer costs.

While it is tempting for governments to expand the provision of social services by, for example, introducing a new statutory holiday, this simply adds costs to business, reducing competitiveness and discouraging investment. It is questionable whether tying new social benefits to employment is an efficient or effective way for government to achieve its social policy goals. The limitations of labour legislation in meeting broad- based societal objectives must be recognized.

Legislative interventions can also have costly and unintended effects. For example, legislation making it more costly to terminate employees can discourage employers from hiring new workers. Similarly, the mandatory extension of benefits to part-timers may result in the scaling down or termination of benefits for full-time employees.

While it is necessary to ensure a basic standard of protection for employees, foodservice employers and employees need employment laws that are realistic, fair, flexible and respect individual choices. Any changes to the Canada Labour Code should recognize the diverse needs of employers and employees and promote voluntary cooperation between them so that employees can make up their own minds about what kind of workplace arrangements best suit their needs.

Importance of Labour Standards to Canada's Foodservice Industry

The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association (CRFA) appreciates the opportunity to provide the foodservice industry's perspective on Federal Labour Standards through our participation in a review of Part III of the Canada Labour Code (CLC).

CRFA is the largest hospitality association in Canada. Since its founding in 1944, CRFA has grown to more than 25,000 members representing every type of foodservice operator. Our members include licensed and unlicensed restaurants, bars, cafeterias and caterers, as well as accommodation, entertainment and institutional foodservice businesses. While the majority of foodservice businesses in Canada are not federally regulated, members offering foodservice to airlines, ferries, trains, correctional service facilities, and the military are governed by the Canada Labour Code. In addition, the Canada Labour Code is viewed as a model by the provinces and changes to it are often adopted by other jurisdictions in Canada.

A review of Canada's legislative framework for employment standards is of critical importance to the foodservice industry because of the labour intensive nature foodservice. Labour represents a significant portion of a restaurant operator's costs – 30% on average- so any changes in employment standards must result in performance and productivity gains and not simply an increase in employer costs.

About Canada's Foodservice Industry

Canada's restaurant and foodservices industry represents one of the largest sectors of the Canadian economy with sales of $47 billion, representing 4% of Canada's GDP.

With 1,032,400 Canadians on its payroll, foodservice is also one of the country's largest private sector employers. The industry's workforce represents 6.5% of the country's total employment. A further 237,500 Canadians are indirectly employed by the industry.

The foodservice industry is also a major source of youth and entry-level jobs employing 450,000 young Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24. This represents 18.3% of total youth employment in Canada and 43.6% of the jobs in foodservice. The industry provides these young people with valuable job experience and training. The generic skills they acquire in the industry – communication, teamwork, customers service, and problem-solving, for example – can build a foundation for advancement within the foodservice industry or provide a springboard to other career paths. The flexible work arrangements offered by our industry appeal to many people – especially students – looking to balance personal and school commitments with the need to earn income.

State of the Foodservice Industry

Canada's foodservice industry has faced an unprecedented number of challenges in recent years, from a reduction in travel to Canada, to the rising Canadian dollar and, most recently, skyrocketing gas prices. As a result, real foodservice sales have increased just 2% since 2000, compared to real GDP growth of 13% during this same period. There are nearly 1,000 fewer foodservice operators today than in 2000 because of declining consumer demand and low profits. According to the most recent data from Statistics Canada, rising food and labour costs reduced the pre-tax profit margin for the average foodservice operator to only 3.3% in 2003. The average business in Canada, in contrast, enjoyed a pre-tax profit of 6.6%. In Ontario, the province with the largest foodservice industry in Canada, real foodservice sales have plummeted 6.6% since 2000 and profit margins are the lowest in Canada at just 2.2%.

The outlook for the foodservice industry remains uncertain. While Canada's growing economy will boost employment and household incomes, the foodservice industry is still threatened by a declining tourist industry, which accounts for nearly 20% of foodservice sales. The lingering impact of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and SARS, combined with the high Canadian dollar and long border lineups, have reduced international travel to Canada by a staggering 22% since 2000. In addition, foodservice sales have been restrained by higher gasoline prices, the NHL lockout and smoking bans.

I. Setting the Bar for Federal Labour Standards

Foodservice employers and employees need employment laws that are realistic, fair and flexible, and that respect individual choices. Any changes to the Canada Labour Code should recognize the diverse needs of employers and employees and promote voluntary cooperation between both groups so that employees can make up their own minds about what kind of workplace arrangements best suit their needs.

The current regulatory framework was designed for the traditional, industrial, male- dominated workforce where the norm was to work a "9-to-5" day. Simply layering on new regulations in an attempt to capture all aspects of the evolving nature of work – including multiple-family member participation in the work force and an increasing number of flexible work arrangements – would create a labyrinth of red tape and costs that could not be absorbed or tolerated by business. In today's global economy, where it is easy for capital and business investment to flow across borders, businesses could simply relocate to jurisdictions that do not impose excessive costs, or could resort to job reduction in an effort to sustain profitability.

Evolving consumer service demands have increased pressures on businesses to become more flexible and adaptable. Customer needs cannot be accommodated within the confines of the "9-to-5" work day. Restaurants cannot inventory meals and must schedule employees when people want to be served, including evenings, week ends and holidays. The need for flexibility applies equally on the supply side. There is a large and growing number of Canadians who seek out and prefer part-time work due to other educational, career and family demandsⁱ.

In the foodservice sector, the vast majority of businesses are small and independently run. Rigid employment rules are particularly challenging for these operators. They do not have employees to reallocate when there are sharp fluctuations in business volume and so have to rely on a flexible staff. They do not have the internal resources to interpret regulations and handle the paperwork that accompanies regulations and they have fewer employees over which they can amortize the administrative costs of regulation.

At the same time, small business operators generally have more personal and trusting relationships with their staff because they understand it is in the best interest of their business to ensure staff commitment and co-operation. They recognize that they can retain staff through flexible policies that accommodate employee wants and needs.

"In smaller firms, bargaining power is more symmetric (than in larger firms). An employee who leaves can cause considerable disruption to the small employer and the small internal workforce, given that there is limited room for internal replacement or external recruiting. In such circumstances, the employer has a vested interest in the employment conditions of the employees without such conditions being legislated."ⁱⁱ

Labour organizations characterize the structural characteristics of the work relationship - permanent or temporary, employed or self-employed, full- or part-time – as a primary determinant of a "good" job or a "bad" job. In reality, it is the quality of the work relationship, measured by the degree of trust, commitment, influence and communication that defines an employee's experience of a job as "good" or "bad". Trust, commitment, influence and communications cannot be legislated.

In order to attract and retain quality staff, these relationship characteristics must be embraced by employers. Tight labour markets in every sector of the economy and every region of the country have been driving up labour costs and enhancing the ability of employees to negotiate working conditions and working relationships that suit their needs. Demographic outlooks indicate that labour shortages in many sectors of the economy will worsen in the coming years, further enhancing employee negotiating powers.

It is impossible to create universal legislation that will balance the stability and security needs of all workers with the flexibility and productivity needs of employers in today's changing work environment. The needs of employees and the requirements of employers differ substantially from workplace to workplace and between sectors. That is not to suggest that government should attempt, through labour standards legislation, to impose collective agreements on specific industries, occupations or businesses by size. The objective of federal labour standards should be to provide a basic standard of protection for employees in areas such as holiday and vacation pay, hours of work and payment of wages. Voluntary arrangements should be encouraged at the business level, not the sectoral level, by individual or collective agreement, so that employers and employees have the opportunity to mutually agree on working conditions that address the uniqueness of the company and the specific needs of its employees.

Employment laws have to be realistic as to how much protection can and should be achieved through legislation. Employment standards shouldn't be a collective agreement for the unorganized or serve as a "grab bag" of benefits that labour unions have been unsuccessful in negotiating into collective agreements.

Similarly, the Canada Labour Code should not be used by government to expand the provision of social services. For example, a new statutory holiday, while attractive to Canadians, simply adds costs to business, reducing competitiveness and discouraging investment. CRFA does not believe that tying new social benefits to employment is an efficient or effective way for government to achieve its social policy goals. The limitations of labour legislation in meeting broad-based societal objectives must be recognized.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• The Canada Labour Code should ensure a basic standard of protection for employees while ensuring the flexibility needs of employers are met.
• The Canada Labour Code must recognize the diversity of industry and workforce needs and encourage the voluntary determination of workplace arrangements, beneficial to both employers and employees, at the business level.
• The Canada Labour Code must recognize the limitations of labour legislation in meeting broad-based societal objectives.

II. Looking at Existing Labour Standards: What Works? What Does Not Work?

The Canada Labour Code cannot and should not address every labour market situation. The overly-prescriptive nature of the CLC gives rise to further labour market adjustments.

"When faced with a policy problem it is often tempting to design policy responses that deal with the symptoms rather than the cause of the problem. This is fostered by the fact that policy makers and politicians are often legally trained, in which case legislated and regulatory solutions come naturally as appropriate responses. Little attention is paid to the incentives that give rise to the problem in the first place, and hence how policy may alter those incentive structures to yield more socially acceptable outcomes. Furthermore, ignoring market mechanisms runs the risk that policy initiatives may "get undone" by private responses, as the parties adjust other margins in response to the policy initiatives."ⁱⁱⁱ

Currently, prescriptive hours of work and termination requirements make it more cost effective for employers to contract out services rather than hire new employees to do the work. However, legislative attempts to put new parameters around contract work will likely result in other market responses that hurt, rather than help, workers such as replacing labour with capital investments in equipment.

Similarly setting minimum wage above the market clearing wage rate results in fewer opportunities for young people to get valuable workplace experience needed to transition from school to work.

What Works

The foodservice industry has had significant experience with minimum wage regulations as it is one of Canada's largest employers of entry-level workers. CRFA believes that current Canada Labour Code provisions, which sets the minimum wage according to the jurisdiction in which the worker is usually employed, to be appropriate and recommend that they be retained.

The bulk of empirical research studies conducted in Canada and abroad confirm standard economic theory that mandated minimum wages set above the market clearing wage rate result in reduced employment. The research also indicates that those who experience the worst unemployment effects incurred by a minimum wage increase are young, inexperienced and unskilled workers.

Time-series econometric studies estimate that a 10% increase in the minimum wage reduces employment among teenagers (aged 15-19) by 1% to 3%, when other factors are held constant.^iv

Union and social action groups will suggest that minimum wage provisions be changed to ensure all Canadians have access to a "living wage". However, empirical evidence indicates that raising the minimum wage is an ineffective way to raise someone out of poverty. It will not help people out of work obtain work and it will not necessarily help low income Canadians because minimum wage earners are typically young and unskilled – not necessarily poor. Traditionally, economists oppose the use of minimum wages as an instrument for redistributing income on the grounds that it is a relatively inefficient way to redirect resources to those in need.^v

Both minimum wage proponents and opponents recognize that some jobs will be priced out of the market when minimum wage is increased above the market clearing wage rate. The "winners" are those employees whose wages will rise. The "losers" are those who will lose hours or jobs as well as those who will not be able to find jobs. The benefits to the "winners" must therefore be weighed against the costs to the "losers" whose employment opportunities will be reduced.^vi

Minimum wage policy as an income redistribution tool or anti-poverty tool is ineffective relative to other policies such as income transfers to low income families through the tax system. This is because the minimum wage applies to an individual, while poverty depends on family need and the number of wage earners in the family.

Two studies, which analyze wage distribution within the Canadian labour market, also conclude that minimum wage is a blunt policy instrument for alleviating poverty (Benjamin - 1995^vii, and Fortin and Lemieux – 1998^viii). Benjamin reports that the poorest 10% of households have no wage earners and while households in the bottom half of family income distribution benefit more than those at the high end from a minimum wage increase, there is considerable "leakage" to higher income families.

What Does Not Work

CRFA believes that other provisions in the regulations need to be modified to ensure more balance between employer and employee rights and responsibilities. For example, employers are required to give notice to employees of termination or pay in lieu of notice. However, employees can walk out on employers with no notice and no penalty. Some jurisdictions require employees to provide reciprocal notice of their intention to leave their job. Similarly, employers are required to hold jobs open for 52 weeks while employees are on parental leave but there is no obligation on the part of the employee to notify the employer if they do not intend to return to the job. CRFA recommends that employees be required to provide a minimum of four weeks notice if they do not intend to return to their job following parental leave.

Finally, CRFA recommends that the commission explore non-legislative approaches to the issues identified in the review paper, such as reviews and distribution of best practices; and not attempt to develop new regulations to provide coverage for self-employed workers or to apply more provisions to managers and specified professionals. CRFA further recommends that overtime exemptions should be expanded to cover more employees who work independently, set their own hours, are well paid, but do not necessarily supervise others.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Avoid overly prescriptive legislation that gives rise to labour market adjustments, such as hours of work and termination provisions.
• Retain the provisions (178-181) that set the minimum wage according to the jurisdiction in which the worker is usually employed.
• Ensure more balance between employer and employee rights and responsibilities by requiring employees to give reciprocal notice when they intend to leave a job and to provide a minimum of four weeks notice when they don't intend to return to work after parental leave.
• Do not attempt to develop new regulations to provide coverage for self- employed workers or to provide additional provisions for managers and specified professionals.

III. New Forms of Employment Relationships and Non-Standard Work

In the interests of both employers and employees, CRFA believes the Commission should resist union and interest group efforts to lump all non-standard work together. Part-time employees, own-account self-employed workers, temporary workers, contract workers, home workers, etc., have different characteristics and needs, and these are reflected in differing employment relationships.

CRFA opposes expanding the scope of the Canada Labour Code in an attempt to provide coverage for all forms of non-standard work for the reasons outlined in the previous sections.

It is also important to address some misconceptions about part-time work. An increasing number of Canadians are choosing part-time work as evidenced by Statistics Canada Labour Force survey results^ix. In 2004, 73% of Canadians working in part-time jobs were doing so voluntarily. This percentage is up from 69% in 1997.

In the foodservice industry, students are by far the largest proportion of part-time workers. Others choose to work part time due to career and family situations. Homemakers, for example, may choose part-time work in order to be home part-time during the school year. According to Statistics Canada, 30% of Canadians choose part- time work because they are going to school, 13% choose it because they are caring for children or have other personal or family responsibilities, 4% choose it for other reasons, and 26% simply prefer working part-time.

There are also Canadians working full-time who would prefer to work part-time with a corresponding drop in pay. According to the 1995 Survey of Work Arrangements^x, 6% of the population would take advantage of this opportunity if it was available.

Legislative responses to address Canadians' desire to work more hours or fewer hours would likely interfere with the needs of other employees. For example, mandating the pro-rating of benefits for part-timers has been proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress to assist employees wishing to reduce their hours, without losing benefits, as they transition into retirement. While mandatory provision of benefits might be helpful to an individual worker, it would have unintended and negative consequences for others. In the foodservice industry, it could result in a withdrawal of existing benefits for full- time employees, it could discourage employers from providing new benefits, it would provide no added benefit to those employees already covered by a parent or spousal plan and could result in fewer part-time jobs for students and young workers.

Employers offer employees benefits such as health, dental, life and disability insurance to provide a competitive compensation package, to encourage and reward loyalty, and to provide a cost-effective way to pool risk. Because part-time employees are seeking extra income while attending school or pursuing other professions or interests, it is inaccurate to suggest that there is a universal demand amongst part-time workers for additional benefits.

Insurance companies are unwilling to provide insurance to employers with a high degree of turnover because of high administration costs and concerns about anti-selection, whereby employees take a job for 3 months to put through the equivalent of two years worth of dental work. Employers not able to access insurance cannot be compelled to purchase it and insurance companies unable to offer it without losing money cannot be required to provide it or to provide it at a reasonable cost.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Resist expanding the scope of the Canada Labour Code in an attempt to provide coverage for all forms of non-standard work.
• Avoid one-size-fits-all approaches that have unintended consequences for some employers and employees such as mandated pro-rated benefits.

IV. Balancing Work and Personal/Family Responsibilities

Finding the right balance between work, personal, school and family responsibilities will always be a challenge for both employers and employees.

Non-standard work, such as contract work and work done at home, has grown in recent years in response to employees seeking a different balance between work and family life as well as opportunities to expand their training and education.

Most employers recognize that they must be flexible and adaptable to attract and retain good employees. As indicated previously, Canadians seek out part-time jobs in the foodservice industry because these jobs allow them to balance their educational, career and lifestyle pursuits. Foodservice employers recognize that employee availability depends on school activities, homework assignments, exams, etc., in the case of students, and the juggling of family responsibilities in the case of homemakers. However, as scheduling and overtime requirements become more restrictive, it becomes more difficult for employers to accommodate employee requests for shift changes and time off.

A study by the Conference Board of Canada indicates Canadian companies not only realize the impact of work-life balance on business issues such as employee stress and morale but believe they have an important role to play in helping their employees achieve it.^xi According to this study, a growing number of employers introduced initiatives in one or more of the following areas during the 1990s: childcare, dependant care, flexible work arrangements, and special leaves.

"The introduction of new technologies and the redesign of many jobs have allowed for more flexibility in how, when and where work is done. Therefore, flexible work arrangements, such as flextime, compressed work weeks, job sharing and telework, have become more prevalent over the past decade as means of assisting employees in balancing their work and personal responsibilities. Overall, 93 per cent of surveyed employers offered at least one type of flexible work arrangements to their employees, and most provided a wide range of options (an average of 4.3 based on a list of 8 options).

In addition to flexible work arrangements, the majority of survey respondents (97 per cent) reported having at least one special leave policy over and above legal requirements for their non-unionized employees, and over half (56 per cent) reported having six or more policies in place."

Unions and other groups demanding more rigid workplace rules and the extension of these rules beyond the employee/employer relationship are also demanding more flexibility from employers for leave situations. These groups must recognize that it is impossible to have it both ways – that is, to have more workplace rules and more flexible work arrangements. Employers and employees should be able to tailor work arrangements to their own unique circumstances.

Canadian companies are still adjusting to the introduction of compassionate care leave as well as the extension of parental leave to 52 weeks. These expensive programs, while valued by many employees, were introduced arbitrarily without consultation with business or any consideration of the impact they would have on employers. It is critical that any new program to address work-life balance issues be developed and implemented with the input and support of the employers and employees it will affect.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Avoid rigid scheduling and hours of work requirements that make it difficult for employers to accommodate employee flexibility needs.
• Ensure employers are consulted before any new program to address work-life balance issue is introduced.

V. Workplace Productivity

It is well established that higher productivity per worker is necessary to raise the standard of living of Canadians, yet, productivity growth in Canada has been relatively flat over the past two years and has lagged productivity in the U.S. over the past four years. As a result, the Canadian government and business analysts have taken greater interest in finding ways to improve Canada's lagging productivity.

Productivity in Perspective

Since 2001, cumulative labour productivity (output per hour worked) has grown a lackluster 2.5% in Canada. In addition, productivity has slowed significantly from 3.4% growth in 2000 to only 0.1% growth in 2004.^xii

What is especially troubling for Canadian policy makers is how far Canada has fallen behind the United States. Cumulative labour productivity in the U.S. has soared 15.9% since 2001 – six times faster than that of Canada. More recently, while productivity in Canada slumped in 2003 and 2004, output per worker in the U.S. jumped 4.3% in 2003 and 3.9% in 2004. As a result, the output per hour as a proportion of that in the United States has plummeted from 82% in 2001 to 74% in 2004. The last time the gap in productivity between Canada and the U.S. was this wide was 1954.

It is recognized that factors such as personal income tax rates, which are significantly higher in Canada than in the U.S., impact differences in productivity. Lower personal income tax rates make it more attractive for Canada's most skilled workers to move to the U.S. Similarly, the corporate tax structure impacts the ability of companies to invest in research, development, training and the adoption of new technologies, which lift output per worker. While these factors are outside the mandate of the Commission, the role of employment standard regulations must also be considered.

The Role of Employment Standards in Improving Productivity

A skilled, adaptable and productive workforce is needed in order for Canada to meet its objectives of long-term economic growth and prosperity. Flexible labour laws that encourage, rather than restrain, employers' ability to meet the flexibility needs of their employees will help to develop such a workforce. Flexible work policies that meet the needs of individuals reduce stress and absenteeism, boosting productivity. Rigid rules that limit flexibility have the opposite affect.

Mandating employer training in an effort to increase overall spending by business on training in inappropriate. The amount of training appropriate for a business varies depending on the nature of the business, the market conditions, the length of the business cycle, etc. Legislating a specific percentage of payroll to be spent on training could promote a gross under-spending in some businesses or sectors and overspending in others. Foodservice operators recognize that the proper development of the skills and competencies of employees is a key component of success. When training employees helps to improve the quality of products and service and make operations consistently competitive and profitable, employers embrace the opportunity. Attempts by government to mandate employer training or to quantify the amount of training companies should undertake would be a costly and unnecessary intrusion into the human resource practices of firms.

Employer concerns about "poaching" – in which, employers' investments in training are lost when employees are lured to hirer wage firms that do not invest in training – are also real. Providing incentives for employees to access and invest in training that provides transferable skills, and encouraging governments to increase investments in post- secondary education and apprenticeship training, are non-legislative alternatives to address these concerns and to promote training, skills upgrading, and workplace learning.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Ensure labour laws are sufficiently flexible to foster an adaptable and productive labour force, which is required to increase the standard of living of Canadians and the country's long-term growth and prosperity goals.
• Avoid mandating employer training or training tax incentive schemes which do not recognize the diversity of company training needs.

VI. Diversity and Changing Demographics in the Workforce

One of Canada's greatest strengths is the multi-cultural composition of its population and the diversity of its workforce. CRFA believes that every Canadian should have equal access to jobs and the opportunity to learn and apply new skills and knowledge. As the labour shortage continues to grow, the participation of Canadians currently underrepresented in the labour force – aboriginals, visible minorities, persons with disabilities – will become increasingly important to the growth and competitiveness of Canada's economy.

CRFA believes that new provisions in the Canada Labour Code to address employment equity issues are unnecessary and would duplicate or overlap with the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Employment Equity Act. Employment equity is outside the mandate of the Canada Labour Code and intrusion in that area would undermine the purpose of other federal legislation.

RECOMMENDATION

• Do not add changes to the Canada Labour Code to address issues of workplace inequality because they would unnecessarily duplicate the purpose and existing provisions within the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act.

VII. Modernizing and Clarifying the Code's Enforcement and Administrative Provisions

Legislative compliance is generally very high when regulations are realistic, fair, easy-to- understand and simple to follow. Legislative compliance is generally low when regulations are overly bureaucratic, complex, perceived to be inequitable or create too much red tape for operators. CRFA recommends the drafting of regulations that are written in easy-to-read language and that can be readily adhered to.

CRFA believes the current complaints-based system for the Canada Labour Code is adequate but care must be taken to ensure that inspectors are well-trained and take a balanced approach when enforcing its provisions, and that they do not misinterpret their role as serving exclusively as employee advocates.

CRFA also recommends following the example of provincial jurisdictions that provide information pamphlets outlining the requirements of the Codes in very simple language. A communication strategy that includes the availability of information in multiple languages, web-based information, seminars and a 1-800 number where employers and employees could access an information officer – as opposed to an automated system – for clarification on regulations is also recommended. This is particularly important when any regulatory changes are introduced.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Ensure Canada Labour Code inspectors are trained to take a balanced approach to Code enforcement and do not see themselves as employee protectors or advocates.
• Develop a communications strategy to ensure information on regulations is easily accessible and available to employers and employees in simple, easy- to-understand language.

Summary of Recommendations

• The Canada Labour Code should ensure a basic standard of protection for employees while ensuring the flexibility needs of employers are met.
• The Canada Labour Code must recognize the diversity of industry and workforce needs and encourage the voluntary determination of workplace arrangements, beneficial to both employers and employees, at the business level.
• The Canada Labour Code must recognize the limitations of labour legislation in meeting broad-based societal objectives.
• Avoid overly prescriptive legislation that gives rise to labour market adjustments, such as hours of work and termination provisions.
• Retain the provisions (178-181) that set the minimum wage according to the jurisdiction in which the worker is usually employed.
• Ensure more balance between employer and employee rights and responsibilities by requiring employees to give reciprocal notice when they intend to leave a job and to provide a minimum of four weeks notice when they don't intend to return to work after parental leave.
• Do not attempt to develop new regulations to provide coverage for self-employed workers or to provide additional provisions for managers and specified professionals.
• Resist expanding the scope of the Canada Labour Code in an attempt to provide coverage for all forms of non-standard work.
• Avoid one-size-fits-all approaches that have unintended consequences for some employers and employees such as mandated pro-rated benefits.
• Avoid rigid scheduling and hours of work requirements that make it difficult for employers to accommodate employee flexibility needs.
• Ensure employers are consulted before any new program to address work-life balance issue is introduced.
• Ensure labour laws are sufficiently flexible to foster an adaptable and productive labour force, which is required to increase the standard of living of Canadians and the country's long-term growth and prosperity goals.
• Avoid mandating employer training or training tax incentive schemes which do not recognize the diversity of company training needs.
• Do not add changes to the Canada Labour Code to address issues of workplace inequality because they would unnecessarily duplicate the purpose and existing provisions within the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act.
• Ensure Canada Labour Code inspectors are trained to take a balanced approach to Code enforcement and do not see themselves as employee protectors or advocates.
• Develop a communications strategy to ensure information on regulations is easily accessible and available to employers and employees in simple, easy-to-understand language.

Endnotes

ⁱ Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada, Involuntary Part-time Employment in Canada, 1997-2004

ⁱⁱ Gunderson, Morley; and Riddell, W. Craig, (2000), Employment Standards in the New World of Work, January 2000, page 16

ⁱⁱⁱ Gunderson, Morley; and Riddell, W. Craig, (1999), The Changing Nature of Work: Implications for Public Policy

^iv Campolieti, Michele; Fang, Tony; and Gunderson, Morley (2004), Minimum Wage Impacts on Youth Employment Transitions: 1993-1999, University of Toronto

Dungan, Peter; and Gunderson, Morley (1989), The Effects of Minimum Wage Increases on Employment in Ontario, Institute for Policy Analysis, University of Toronto

Shannon, Michael; and Beach, Charles (1995), Distributional Employment Effects of Ontario Minimum Wage Proposals: A Microdata Approach, Canadian Public Policy XXI:3, pp. 284-303

Baker, Michael; Benjamin, Dwayne; and Stanger, Shuchita (1999), The Highs of Lows on Minimum Wage Effect: A Time-Series Cross-Section Study of the Canadian Law", Journal of Labour Economics

Brown, Charles; Gilroy, Curtis; and Kohen, Andrew (1992), The Effect of the Minimum Wage on Employment and Unemployment, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XX, pp 487-528

Neumark, David; and Wascher, William (1991), Employment Effects of Minimum and Subminimum Wages: Panel Data on state Minimum Wage Laws, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 46, No.1

Abowd; Kramarz; Lemieux; and Margolis (1997), Minimum Wage and Youth Employment in France and the United States", National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 61111

Brazen, S.; and Martin, J.P. (1991), The Impact of the Minimum Wage on Earnings and Employment in France, OECD Economic Studies, No. 16, pp 199-221

^v Law, Marc T. (1999), The Economics of Minimum Wage Laws, Public Policy Sources, No. 14

^vi Gunderson, Morley; and Riddell, W. Craig (2000), Employment Standards in the New World of Work

^vii Benjamin, D. (1995), Minimum Wages in Canada, Contemporary Labour Policy Issues in Canada and Latin America, University of Toronto

^viii Fortin, N.; and Lemieux, T. (1998), Income Redistribution in Canada: Minimum Wages versus Other Policy Instruments, Adapting Public Policy to a Labour Market in Transition, Institute for Research and Public Policy

^ix Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada, Involuntary Part-time Employment in Canada, 1997-2004

^x Statistics Canada (1995), Survey of Work Arrangements

^xi Backmann, Kimberley, Work-Life Balance: Are Employers Listening?, Conference Board of Canada Research Report, June 2000

^xii The Centre for Study of Living Standards