Act Now - The Report of the WCB Legislative Review Panel to the

2. Are there workers in specific industries that should be included or excluded asin other jurisdictions?3. Are there specific types of work or occupations that should be included orexcluded, as in other jurisdictions?4. Should a worker’s relationship to an employer affect their designation as aworker?5. Should independent operators or sole proprietors have the choice ofdesignating themselves as workers?6. Should executive officers of an employer be considered workers?7. Should volunteers be considered workers eligible for compensation in certaincircumstances?When considering the first 4 questions, the Panel concluded that a worker is a worker. Inother words, anyone receiving a paycheque from an employer is a worker. In the Panel’sopinion, this includes “learners” or apprentices who are learning on the job. If there arereasons of precedent to specifically mention learners, then the existing reference in theActs should remain. It made sense to the Panel to reinforce the employment relationshipin a manner similar to the Ontario definition.The Panel received a number of submissions concerning the eligibility of independentoperators (currently defined as a person…who does not employ any worker…). The termsole proprietor is also used in other jurisdictions. The Panel had no opinion about whichterm is more appropriate. We are concerned that there be consistent usage of one term.Independent operators are not considered workers for the purpose of receivingcompensation under the Acts (in Subsection 9(1)(c)) unless an application under Section9(2) is made and accepted by the WCB.Stakeholders told the Panel that employers who have contracted with independentoperators who have not applied for coverage under the Acts are being assessed as if theseindependent operators were their workers. This makes no sense. These independentWCB Legislative Review Panel Report Page 14 of 128December, 2001