When seasonal hires look more like permanent employees, be prepared to pay

Returning to the same employer on the same yearly basis may confer employees rights that are far greater than the “seasonal” label suggests. Photo by Zinkevych/Getty Images

Article content

Every spring, Canadian employers repeat the same ritual: they hire “summer students” and seasonal staff, comforted by the belief that these relationships are, by definition, temporary — tidy engagements that begin in May and end, without consequence, in August.

Article content

That belief is often misplaced.

Article content

Article content

Employment law has little patience for labels. Calling a role a “summer job” or a “seasonal position” does not determine an employee’s rights.

Article content

Article content

Courts are concerned with substance, not form. And the substance of these arrangements, particularly when repeated over time, can look very different from the neat, temporary construct that employers imagine.

Article content

Article content

The complication arises when “temporary” becomes habitual.

Article content

Across industries — from tourism to construction to agriculture — employers routinely bring back the same individuals year after year. A university student works every summer. A seasonal labourer returns each spring, part of a predictable cycle.

Article content

To the employer, each engagement feels discrete: a fresh hire, a clean slate, a defined end date. To a court, it looks like continuity, an implicit understanding or agreement.

Article content

Where there is a pattern of recurring employment, especially one marked by expectation and reliance, courts are inclined to assess the relationship as a whole.

Article content

What emerges is not a series of isolated contracts but something closer to ongoing employment — punctuated, perhaps, by seasonal pauses, but not truly terminated.

Article content

That distinction is not academic. It is, however, expensive.

Article content

Article content

Employees in indefinite employment relationships are entitled to reasonable notice of termination or pay in lieu. The seasonal nature of the work does not extinguish that entitlement. Yet many employers proceed on precisely that assumption — that the off-season represents a legal break in the relationship.

Article content

Article content

But it often does not.

Article content

A pattern of re-engagement — the same individual, the same role, year after year — can be sufficient for a court to conclude that the employment relationship never truly ended. It simply went dormant. And the longer that pattern persists, the more difficult it becomes to argue otherwise.

Article content

One summer is rarely problematic. Four or five consecutive seasons is something else.

Article content

At that point, the “temporary” label begins to collapse under its own weight. The employee is no longer a casual, short-term hire but a known quantity — trained, relied upon and integrated into the operations. From a business perspective: efficient. From a legal perspective: risky.

Article content

The issue surfaces when the pattern is broken.

Article content

An employer elects not to bring the individual back. The employee sees it as a termination of ongoing employment and seeks compensation. The dispute that follows turns not on what the parties called the relationship but on what it actually was.