Curated Content Canada: Student Employees Have The Right To Equal Pay For Equivalent Work: Québec Court Of Appeal

Employers who hire students for summer jobs and other positions in Québec should take note of a June 16, 2021 decision of the Québec Court of Appeal (the "Court of Appeal"). Dismissing an appeal of a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal (the "Tribunal"), the province's highest court agreed that a student's fundamental right to receive equal pay for equivalent work is guaranteed by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (the "Québec Charter").

Unequal Wages for Equivalent Work

In Aluminerie de Bécancour inc. v. CDPDJ and Syndicat des Métallos local 9700, 2021 QCCA 989, the employer was the operator of a plant for the production and transformation of aluminum products as well as a metal foundry.

The employer hired students as replacements for vacationing employees during the summer and other holiday seasons. Unionized employees fell into three categories: regular employees, casual employees and student employees. As negotiated, the collective agreement provided that students would be compensated at the lowest wage rate, creating a gap between student wages and those of other employees.

However, the evidence showed that students performed work equivalent to that performed by regular and casual workers. In this regard, the evidence showed that both students and other employees were not systematically trained in all the tasks of the position they hold. Furthermore, when performing the same task, all employees received the same training, put in the same effort, had the same responsibilities and worked under the same conditions.

For these reasons, the Tribunal concluded that the students were performing equivalent work, which was subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Student Status as "Social Condition"

Section 10 of the Québec Charter protects a person against any distinction based on social condition where such a distinction has the effect of nullifying or impairing the right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his or her human rights and freedoms.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal confirmed that student status falls under the definition of "social condition" in section 10. On this basis, the Court of Appeal maintained that the Tribunal could draw the conclusion that prohibited discrimination existed, stemming from a distinction based on student status, which is now included in the "social condition" ground of discrimination.

Absence of Valid Grounds

Section 19 of the Québec Charter prohibits discrimination, within the meaning of section 10, in the determination of wages or salaries by the employer. Section 19 obliges employers to pay, without discrimination, equal wages to employees performing equivalent work in the same place. However, section 19(2) of the Québec Charter provides that there is no discrimination where the difference in salary or wages is based on a ground such as experience, seniority, years of service, merit or productivity.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the employer in this case had no ground to deprive the students of receiving equal wages for equivalent work. The employer was unable to show that the students were not performing all the duties of the positions to which they were assigned, since the work performed was the same or equivalent to that of the employees they were replacing. The difference in wage levels was not based on a ground enumerated in section 19(2) of the Québec Charter or on any other valid ground.

In the Court of Appeal's view, the employer had an obligation to pay the students the same wage, considering the rigorous manner in which the employer trained all of its employees – whether regular, casual or student – due to the very specific (and dangerous) nature of the tasks and the work environment.

The Tribunal and the Court of Appeal rejected the employer's argument that, because the students' contract was for a fixed term, "years of service" was a valid ground for the wage differential. In this case, the wage difference was not based on the employees' experience, seniority or years of service. In fact, casuals were paid more than students from day one of their employment, and the wage schedules had a single rate, regardless of the years of service of the employees.

In the end, the Court of Appeal held that the students were paid a lower wage simply because of the social group to which they belonged (i.e. students). In this regard, the analysis of the evidence showed that the employer had not established any valid ground for paying students less for doing the same or equivalent work as their colleagues. Consequently, the students who worked for the employer were victims of prohibited discrimination due to the violation of the right enshrined in section 19 of the Québec Charter.

Conclusions and Compensation

The Court of Appeal concluded that the unequal wages of the students resulted from an arbitrary decision, based on a prohibited ground of discrimination, which unreasonably deprived the students of their right to receive equal pay for equivalent work.

Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the employer to pay damages to each complainant to compensate for the losses suffered during the entire non-prescribed period as a result of the differential in pay. The Tribunal also ordered the employer to retroactively recognize all rights, benefits and privileges, present and future, to which the complainants would have been entitled but for the discriminatory wage distinction.

In addition, the Tribunal ordered the employer to pay $1,000 to each complainant as moral damages. Although the mere infringement of a Québec Charter right is not sufficient to give rise to compensation for pain and suffering, the award of moral damages to each student for the pain and suffering suffered is justified in this case because the discrimination to which the students were subjected resulted in an infringement of their dignity: they felt unfairly treated, belittled and diminished.

Takeaways and Factors to be Considered

We note that, according to the Court of Appeal, the reasons for this decision are likely to have a circumscribed impact. Indeed, while the circumstances of this case may be found in other companies, these circumstances are not universal.

In most cases, an employer will be able to justify a wage differential between students and other employees within the grounds set out in section 19 of the Québec Charter, which primarily governs the private sector.

Finally, we note that while the employer in this case could not establish any valid ground for paying students less for doing the same or equivalent work as their colleagues, this will not necessarily be the case for the majority of student jobs in Québec.

N.B. At the time of writing, we are not aware of any application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

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.