The Manitoba Labour Board has ordered National Carpentry Installation to reimburse $31,572.92 in recruitment fees paid for a prospective job, finding that the company's use of unlicensed intermediaries triggered its responsibility under provincial worker-protection legislation.
The Sept. 9, 2026 decision also requires a $1,000 administrative fee. The company must pay the total of $32,572.92 to the Director of Employment Standards, with the recruitment-fee amount owing to the worker identified in the public reasons as J.U.
The employer's appeal succeeded only in removing a separate $105 charge for a background check. The board otherwise upheld the substance of the reimbursement order.
Protection did not depend on starting work
The case arose after J.U. paid a business referred to in the reasons as Star Ring for services that included finding employment. The worker received a job offer from National Carpentry but never began work there. When the worker eventually contacted the company directly, it said the position was no longer available.
National Carpentry argued that the worker never became its employee and that the legislation therefore did not apply. It also denied engaging Star Ring, knowing about the fees or having a financial arrangement with the business.
The board rejected the argument that protection under The Worker Recruitment and Protection Act begins only once someone starts work. The statute addresses recruitment to become employed, it found, rather than requiring an existing employment relationship.
The board reasoned that making employment a precondition would undermine the law's purpose: fees could be collected and a job offer withdrawn, leaving the recruited worker without that statutory remedy.
Intermediaries connected the employer to recruitment
The employer's main defence was that there was no proven relationship between it and Star Ring. The board accepted important limits in the evidence: there was no evidence that the company knew of Star Ring, that money passed between them, or that the company obtained a financial benefit from the fees.
That did not resolve the question of whether National Carpentry had used unlicensed people to recruit the worker.
The board relied on the employer's own evidence that an intermediary delivered the worker's resume and later collected the job offer, employment contract and approved labour market impact assessment for delivery to the worker. The company had relied on that person rather than communicating the documents directly.
The board distinguished accepting a resume alone from the fuller course of dealings established here. It found that the circumstances called for the employer to ask questions about the intermediary's identity, role and licensing. It had not done so.
The reasons also examined another intermediary's involvement, including a message that matched the employer's eventual response to the worker. On the evidence as a whole, the panel found that the company had used unlicensed recruitment assistance contrary to section 20(3)(b).
The ruling is an employment-regulatory finding on a balance of probabilities, not a criminal conviction or a finding that the company itself collected the fees.
Bundled services did not reduce reimbursement
Alternatively, the employer argued that the amount should be reduced because the services purchased included immigration assistance beyond finding employment.
The board rejected that proposed allocation. The contract included a recruitment fee, making it void under the legislation, and the evidence did not permit the different services to be separated. Allowing prohibited recruitment fees to be absorbed into other service charges would defeat the law's protection, the board found.
It treated the $105 background check differently because that was a separate service predating the recruitment contract. Removing it reduced the fee reimbursement from $31,677.92 to $31,572.92; the $1,000 administrative fee remained.
The order directs payment to the Director forthwith. The official materials checked for this report do not establish whether the company has paid or whether a later court proceeding has changed the result.
