Workplace health and safety in federally regulated workplaces: Results from the 2022 Survey of Employees under Federal Jurisdiction
On this page
- Introduction
- Men more likely to be exposed to unsafe working conditions
- Lack of resources is the most common reason for not bringing exposure to unsafe working conditions to the attention of the employer
- Employees in all sectors have a good personal knowledge of workplace safety rules
- Employees in courier services and pipelines the most likely to be involved in workplace incidents resulting in injury or illness
- Rail transportation is the sector with the highest share of employees reporting that they do not have the equipment to do safe work
- Employees in banks the likeliest to feel that they have the right to refuse unsafe work
- Health and safety training most common in air transportation
- Employees in banks the most likely to state that their employer dealt quickly with health and safety issues in the workplace
- Employees in small employers more likely to be involved in health and safety decisions than their counterparts in medium-sized and large employers
- Employees in rail transportation the most likely to report that that their workplace has a workplace health and safety committee
- About one third of employees working for small employers didn’t know if their workplace had a health and safety representative
- About 37% of employers did not know whether their workplace had a hazard prevention program
- More than 3 out of 4 employers have a policy on drug or alcohol use
- Data source, methods and notes to the reader
List of tables
- Table 1: Share of employees by right to refuse unsafe work and sector
- Table 2: Share of employees by degree of comfort in raising issues of workplace safety and by sector
- Table 3: Share of employees who reported having received health and safety training in the previous 2 years by sector and employer size
- Table 4: Share of employees who indicated that their employer identified and dealt “quickly” or “very quickly” with health and safety issues by sector and employer size
- Table 5: Share of employees who indicated that they “agree” or “strongly agree” that they are involved in decisions which affect their health and safety by sector and employer size
- Table 6: Share of employees who indicated that their workplace had a workplace health and safety committee by sector and employer size
- Table 7: Share of employees for employers with less than 20 employees by presence of workplace health and safety representative and sector
- Table 8: Share of employees by presence of a hazard prevention program and sector
List of figures
- Figure 1: Share of employees exposed to unsafe working conditions over the previous 2 years by sector and gender
- Figure 2: Share of employees by reason for not bringing exposure to unsafe working conditions to the attention of the employer
- Figure 3: Share of employees by degree of satisfaction with the way their exposure to unsafe working conditions was dealt with by the employer
- Figure 4: Share of employees who rated their knowledge of workplace health and safety rules as “good” or “very good” by sector
- Figure 5: Share of employees involved in one or more workplace incidents resulting in injury or illness over the previous 2 years by sector and gender
- Figure 6: Share of employees who indicated that they “disagree” or “strongly disagree” that they have the tools and equipment to do safe work by sector
- Figure 7: Main reason for feeling uncomfortable raising issues of workplace safety with your employer
- Figure 8: Share of employees who indicated being aware of coworkers becoming impaired or under the influence of drugs or alcohol during working hours by sector
- Figure 9: Share of employees who indicated that their employer has a policy on drugs and alcohol use by sector
Introduction
This report examines the results of the 2022 Survey of Employees under Federal Jurisdiction (SEFJ) on workplace health and safety. The survey targeted employees working for employers covered by Part III of the Canada Labour Code except certain miscellaneous activities and First Nation band councils and related activities (for more information, see "Data source, methods and notes to the reader"). In the rest of the document, the target universe of the survey is referred to as the "federal jurisdiction". Tables of statistics from the survey are also available on the Open Government Portal.
Men more likely to be exposed to unsafe working conditions
About 7.1% of employees indicated that they had been exposed to unsafe working conditions in the workplace over the previous 2 years, with 33.9% of these employees stating that they had been exposed between one and 3 times and 66.1% exposed 4 or more times (Figure 1).Footnote 1 The sectors under federal jurisdiction that had higher rates of exposure to unsafe working conditions included rail transportation (18.7%), courier services and pipelines (12.0%), and maritime transportation (11.7%). Across all sectors under federal jurisdiction, men (8.4%) were more likely to be exposed to unsafe working conditions than women (4.5%). In fact, the share of men who had been exposed to unsafe working conditions in road (10.4%) and maritime transportation (13.9%) was about 3 times higher than the share of women (3.3% in road transportation and 5.0% in maritime transportation).
Figure 1: text version
| Sector | Men and Women | Men | Women |
|---|---|---|---|
| All sectors | 7.1% | 8.4% | 4.5% |
| Air transportation | 9.5% | 9.6% | 9.3% |
| Rail transportation | 18.7% | 19.4% | 14.1% |
| Road transportation | 9.1% | 10.4% | 3.3% |
| Maritime transportation | 11.7% | 13.9% | 5.0% |
| Courier and pipelines | 12.0% | 12.8% | 9.2% |
| Banks | 2.5% | 2.4% | 2.6% |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 9.6% | 10.9% | 5.6% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 5.4% | 6.1% | 4.4% |
Lack of resources is the most common reason for not bringing exposure to unsafe working conditions to the attention of the employer
Some 16.3% of employees that had been exposed to unsafe working conditions did not bring their exposure to the attention of the employer.Footnote 2 Reasons for not doing so included: they felt there were no resources to deal with the issue (30.0%), fear of reprimand or reprisal (20.5%), they dealt with the issue themselves or with colleagues (16.6%), they did not feel the issue was serious enough (9.9%), they did not have enough time (4.7%), and other reasons (18.3%) (Figure 2).Footnote 3
- Note: Responses are limited to employees who were exposed to unsafe working conditions and who reported not bringing their exposure to the attention of their employer.
Figure 2: text version
| Reasons for not bringing exposure to unsafe working conditions to the attention of the employer | Share of employees |
|---|---|
| No resources to deal with the issue | 30.0% |
| Fear of reprimand or reprisal | 20.5% |
| Other | 18.3% |
| Dealt with it yourself or with colleagues | 16.6% |
| Did not feel it was serious enough | 9.9% |
| Not enough time | 4.7% |
Among employees who were exposed to unsafe working conditions and brought their exposure to the attention of their employer, 4.8% were “very satisfied” with the way their exposure to unsafe working conditions was dealt with, 14.4% were “satisfied”, 22.4% were “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”, 29.7% were “dissatisfied”, 26.5% were “very dissatisfied”, and 2.1% responded “not applicable” (Figure 3).Footnote 4
- Note: Responses are limited to employees who were exposed to unsafe working conditions and who reported bringing their exposure to the attention of their employer.
Figure 3: text version
| Degree of satisfaction with way exposure to unsafe working conditions was dealt with by employer | Share of employees |
|---|---|
| Very satisfied | 4.8% |
| Satisfied | 14.4% |
| Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 22.4% |
| Dissatisfied | 29.7% |
| Very dissatisfied | 26.5% |
| Not applicable | 2.1% |
Employees in all sectors have a good personal knowledge of workplace safety rules
Although employees in rail transportation were the likeliest to have been exposed to unsafe working conditions, they were also among those with the best personal knowledge of workplace safety rules, with 86.5% indicating that their personal knowledge was “good” or “very good” (Figure 4).Footnote 5 Across all industries, 82.1% of employees rated their knowledge as “good” or “very good”. Courier services and pipelines (77.7%) and telecommunications and broadcasting (79.4%) were the 2 sectors with the lowest share of employees rating their knowledge as “good” or better.
Figure 4: text version
| Sector | Share of employees with "very good" or "good" knowledge of workplace health and safety rules |
|---|---|
| All sectors | 82.1% |
| Air transportation | 80.2% |
| Rail transportation | 86.5% |
| Road transportation | 82.7% |
| Maritime transportation | 85.8% |
| Courier and pipelines | 77.7% |
| Banks | 84.2% |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 87.5% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 79.4% |
Employees in courier services and pipelines the most likely to be involved in workplace incidents resulting in injury or illness
About 6.7% of employees indicated that they had been involved in workplace incidents resulting in injury or illness over the previous 2 years.Footnote 6 Employees in courier services and pipelines (17.4%), maritime transportation (10.9%), and rail transportation (10.4%) were the most likely to report having been involved in such incidents.
Men (8.1%) were 2 times more likely than women (4.1%) to be involved in workplace incidents resulting in injury or illness (Figure 5). In some sectors, the difference between men and women was even more pronounced. For instance, the share of men in maritime transportation (13.1%) who had been involved in workplace incidents resulting in injury or illness was about 3 times higher than the share of women (4.2%).
Figure 5: text version
| Sector | Men and Women | Men | Women |
|---|---|---|---|
| All sectors | 6.7% | 8.1% | 4.1% |
| Air transportation | 9.3% | 9.4% | 9.2% |
| Rail transportation | 10.4% | 10.6% | 9.4% |
| Road transportation | 9.2% | 10.3% | 4.4% |
| Maritime transportation | 10.9% | 13.1% | 4.2% |
| Courier and pipelines | 17.4% | 17.5% | 17.1% |
| Banks | 1.6% | 1.7% | 1.6% |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 9.7% | 11.6% | 4.2% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 2.6% | 3.0% | 2.0% |
Rail transportation is the sector with the highest share of employees reporting that they do not have the equipment to do safe work
Overall, 85.3% of employees indicated that they “agree” or “strongly agree” that they have the tools and equipment necessary to do safe work.Footnote 7 Among the remaining employees, 8.0% answered “neither agree nor disagree”, and 6.7% “disagree” or “strongly disagree”. Rail transportation was the sector with the highest share of employees (15.6%) reporting that they did not have the tools and equipment to do their work safely, followed by courier services and pipelines (12.9%), and air transportation (11.4%) (Figure 6).
Figure 6: text version
| Sector | Share of employees who "disagree" or "strongly disagree" that they have the tools and equipment to do safe work |
|---|---|
| All sectors | 6.7% |
| Air transportation | 11.4% |
| Rail transportation | 15.6% |
| Road transportation | 7.6% |
| Maritime transportation | 6.3% |
| Courier and pipelines | 12.9% |
| Banks | 2.7% |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 4.9% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 4.2% |
Employees in banks the likeliest to feel that they have the right to refuse unsafe work
The overwhelming majority of employees felt that they had the right to refuse unsafe work.Footnote 8 In fact, across the federal jurisdiction, 83.9% of employees felt that they had this right. Among remaining employees, 8.3% felt they did not have this right, while 7.8% stated that they “don’t know”. Among the different sectors, the share of employees who felt they had the right to refuse unsafe work ranged from 77.2% in courier services and pipelines to 87.1% in banks (Table 1).
| Sector | Yes | No | Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|
| All sectors | 83.9% | 8.3% | 7.8% |
| Air transportation | 81.2% | 11.4% | 7.4% |
| Rail transportation | 81.0% | 13.5% | 5.6% |
| Road transportation | 82.6% | 9.1% | 8.3% |
| Maritime transportation | 85.4% | 7.3% | 7.3% |
| Courier and pipelines | 77.2% | 12.7% | 10.0% |
| Banks | 87.1% | 6.2% | 6.7% |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 86.6% | 7.1% | 6.3% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 85.2% | 5.3% | 9.6% |
At the same time, most (82.2%) federal jurisdiction employees indicated that they felt “very comfortable” or “comfortable” raising issues workplace safety.Footnote 9 Another 11.5% stated that they felt “neither comfortable nor uncomfortable” and 6.2% “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable”. The share of employees who felt “comfortable” or “very comfortable” ranged from 73.7% in courier services and pipelines to 88.2% in banks (Table 2).
| Sector | Very comfortable or comfortable | Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable | Uncomfortable or very uncomfortable |
|---|---|---|---|
| All sectors | 82.2% | 11.5% | 6.2% |
| Air transportation | 76.2% | 13.9% | 9.9% |
| Rail transportation | 76.6% | 12.7% | 10.8% |
| Road transportation | 80.4% | 13.2% | 6.4% |
| Maritime transportation | 86.0% | 8.7% | 5.3% |
| Courier and pipelines | 73.7% | 16.8% | 9.6% |
| Banks | 88.2% | 8.6% | 3.3% |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 83.7% | 10.6% | 5.6% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 84.6% | 9.7% | 5.7% |
Among employees who felt “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” raising issues of workplace safety with their employer, reasons included: being worried about damaging relations at work (32.6%), worried about other retaliation (26.7%), worried about losing job (25.7%), and worried about losing hours or pay (3.5%). Another 11.5% of respondents stated another reason (Figure 7).Footnote 10
- Note: Responses are limited to employees who felt “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” raising issues of workplace safety with their employer.
Figure 7: text version
| Main reason for feeling uncomfortable raising issues of workplace safety with your employer | Share of employees |
|---|---|
| Worried about damaging relations at work | 32.6% |
| Worried about other retaliation | 26.7% |
| Worried about losing your job | 25.7% |
| Worried about losing hours or pay | 3.5% |
| Other | 11.5% |
Health and safety training most common in air transportation
About 65.2% employees indicated that they had received health and safety training in the previous 2 years. The share of employees having received such training was the highest in air transportation (76.2%) and the lowest in road transportation (51.4%) and in telecommunications and broadcasting (58.4%). Across all sectors, employees working for large employers with 100 or more employees were more likely to report having received health and safety training in the previous 2 years than their counterparts working in small (1 to 19 employees) and medium-sized (20 to 99 employees) employers. Excluding rail transportation and banks, 69.6% of employees working for large employers indicated that they had received health and safety training in the previous 2 years, compared to 43.0% and 51.6% of employees working for small and medium-sized employers, respectively (Table 3).
| Sector | All sizes | Small (1 to 19 employees) | Medium (20 to 99 employees) | Large (100 or more employees) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All sectors | 65.2% | 43.0% | 51.6% | 69.6% |
| Air transportation | 76.2% | 64.2% | 75.0% | 77.0% |
| Rail transportation | 67.2% | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Road transportation | 51.4% | 41.9% | 45.8% | 62.8% |
| Maritime transportation | 63.8% | 45.5% | 60.7% | 70.1% |
| Courier and pipelines | 71.2% | 38.1% | 37.2% | 74.7% |
| Banks | 70.6% | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 71.9% | 47.9% | 61.6% | 87.8% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 58.4% | 26.5% | 40.6% | 61.4% |
- n/a: estimate not available.
Employees in banks the most likely to state that their employer dealt quickly with health and safety issues in the workplace
Across the federal jurisdiction, 71.6% of employees indicated that their employer identified and dealt “quickly” or “very quickly” with health and safety issues in the workplace (Table 4).Footnote 12 Another 18.6% of employees responded, “neither quickly nor slowly”, while 9.8% said “slowly” or “very slowly”. Employees in rail transportation (28.4%) were the most likely to indicate that their employer identified and dealt with health and safety issues “slowly” or “very slowly”, followed by employees in air transportation (15.0%). Employees in banks (4.3%) were the least likely to state a slow response.
Differences by employer size are also present. Excluding rail transportation and banks, federal jurisdiction employees working for small employers (79.4%) with 1 to 19 employees were more likely to state that health and safety issues were identified and dealt with either “quickly” or “very quickly” compared to their counterparts working for medium-sized (68.6%) employers with 20 to 99 employees and large employers (64.5%) with 100 or more employees.
| Sector | All sizes | Small (1 to 19 employees) | Medium (20 to 99 employees) | Large (100 or more employees) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All sectors | 71.6% | 79.4% | 68.6% | 64.5% |
| Air transportation | 61.3% | 77.6% | 67.0% | 59.6% |
| Rail transportation | 48.9% | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Road transportation | 70.4% | 80.9% | 68.9% | 64.5% |
| Maritime transportation | 71.2% | 78.6% | 68.4% | 71.1% |
| Courier and pipelines | 61.2% | 76.0% | 61.6% | 60.6% |
| Banks | 82.4% | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 72.5% | 75.0% | 70.9% | 73.1% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 71.0% | 71.9% | 69.9% | 71.0% |
- n/a: estimate not available.
Employees in small employers more likely to be involved in health and safety decisions than their counterparts in medium-sized and large employers
Overall, 67.6% of federal jurisdiction employees indicated that they “agree” or “strongly agree” that their employer involved them in health and safety decisions.Footnote 13 Another 18.9% of employees responded, “neither agree nor disagree,” while 13.4% stated that they “disagree” or “strongly disagree”. Employees in rail transportation were the most likely to indicate that they were not involved in health and safety decisions, with more than 1 out of 5 employees (21.8%) answering either “disagree” or “strongly disagree”. Feed, flour, seed and grain (74.2%) was the sector with the highest share of employees responding “agree” or “strongly agree”.
Responses vary by employer size, with employees working for small employers more likely to agree that they are involved in health and safety decisions compared to employees in medium-sized and large employers. Indeed, when excluding rail transportation and banking, 78.8% of employees working for small companies agreed or strongly agreed that they were involved in health and safety decisions compared to 62.5% of those working for large companies (Table 5).
| Sector | All sizes | Small (1 to 19 employees) | Medium (20 to 99 employees) | Large (100 or more employees) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All sectors | 67.6% | 78.8% | 68.9% | 62.5% |
| Air transportation | 65.0% | 79.7% | 71.3% | 63.4% |
| Rail transportation | 61.5% | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Road transportation | 68.7% | 79.4% | 67.5% | 62.7% |
| Maritime transportation | 74.9% | 80.7% | 74.8% | 73.5% |
| Courier and pipelines | 59.8% | 74.5% | 58.5% | 59.3% |
| Banks | 71.9% | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 74.2% | 77.4% | 75.7% | 72.0% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 62.0% | 73.4% | 68.1% | 61.0% |
- n/a: estimate not available.
Employees in rail transportation the most likely to report that that their workplace has a workplace health and safety committee
Under the Canada Labour Code, every workplace with 20 or more employees is required to establish a workplace health and safety committee. Workplace health and safety committees have many responsibilities, including keeping records of work accidents, injuries, health hazards, health and safety complaints, considering and expeditiously addressing workplace health and safety complaints, and conducting monthly workplace health and safety inspections. Overall, about 71% of employees indicated that their workplace had a health and safety committee, including 75.9% of employees working in large employers, 54.9% of employees in medium-sized employers and 30.7% of employees in small employers.Footnote 14 Another 9.9% of employees reported that their employer did not have such a committee while 19.5% said that they “don’t know”. Employees in rail transportation (94.0%) were the most likely to report the presence of such a committee, while employees in road transportation (52.8%) were the least likely (Table 6).
| Sector | All sizes | Small (1 to 19 employees) | Medium (20 to 99 employees) | Large (100 or more employees) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All sectors | 70.7% | 30.7% | 54.9% | 75.9% |
| Air transportation | 78.5% | 40.3% | 69.2% | 81.9% |
| Rail transportation | 94.0% | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Road transportation | 52.8% | 30.9% | 48.4% | 71.2% |
| Maritime transportation | 73.4% | 35.2% | 71.4% | 83.9% |
| Courier and pipelines | 66.9% | 18.8% | 38.0% | 70.9% |
| Banks | 79.7% | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 75.0% | 37.5% | 70.8% | 89.9% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 69.4% | 17.5% | 55.8% | 73.1% |
- n/a: estimate not available.
About one third of employees working for small employers didn’t know if their workplace had a health and safety representative
The Canada Labour Code requires “each employer in the federal jurisdiction to appoint a health and safety representative for each workplace controlled by the employer, with fewer than 20 employees”. This representative is responsible for addressing health and safety issues in the workplace. Most employees working for employers with 1 to 19 employees (48.1%) stated that their workplace did not have a health and safety committee representative, while 32.1% stated that they did not know. Another 19.9% of employees indicated that their workplace had such a representative.Footnote 15 Employees working in courier services and pipelines (41.1%) and maritime transportation (39.8%) were the most likely to not know whether their workplace had a health and safety representative.
| Sector | Yes | No | Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|
| All sectors | 19.9% | 48.1% | 32.1% |
| Air transportation | 29.6% | 40.2% | 30.2% |
| Rail transportation | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Road transportation | 20.3% | 49.1% | 30.6% |
| Maritime transportation | 16.9% | 43.4% | 39.8% |
| Courier and pipelines | 12.2% | 46.7% | 41.1% |
| Banks | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 17.3% | 49.3% | 33.3% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 13.7% | 48.9% | 37.4% |
- n/a: estimate not available.
About 37% of employers did not know whether their workplace had a hazard prevention program
A hazard prevention program is a program designed to prevent work-related injuries and diseases. All federally regulated employers are required to develop and implement such a program. Overall, more than half of employees (56.6%) indicated the presence of a hazard prevention program in their workplace.Footnote 16 Another 6.3% of employees stated that such a program was not available while 37.1% indicated that they didn’t know if their workplace had such a program. Rail transportation (68.9%); feed, flour, seed and grain (68.2%); maritime transportation (67.8%); and air transportation (67.4%) had the largest shares of employees who indicated the presence of such a program (Table 8). On the other hand, telecommunications and broadcasting (48.7%) and road transportation (48.7%) had the lowest shares, although these 2 sectors also had high shares of employees stating that they did not know whether their workplace had a hazard prevention program.
| Sector | Yes | No | Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|
| All sectors | 56.6% | 6.3% | 37.1% |
| Air transportation | 67.4% | 4.2% | 28.5% |
| Rail transportation | 68.9% | 4.9% | 26.2% |
| Road transportation | 48.7% | 14.6% | 36.7% |
| Maritime transportation | 67.8% | 6.2% | 26.0% |
| Courier and pipelines | 57.4% | 6.5% | 36.1% |
| Banks | 57.3% | 1.6% | 41.1% |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 68.2% | 6.6% | 25.2% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 48.7% | 5.5% | 45,8% |
More than 3 out of 4 employers have a policy on drug or alcohol use
Only 4.2% of employees indicated being aware of coworkers becoming impaired by or under the influence of drugs or alcohol during their work hours (Figure 8).Footnote 17 Such an event was the most common in rail transportation (11.9%), feed, flour, seed and grain (8.7%), and maritime transportation (8.4%). It was the less frequent in banks (1.5%).
Figure 8: text version
| Sector | Share of employees who reported being aware of coworkers becoming impaired or under the influence of drugs and alcohol during working hours |
|---|---|
| All sectors | 4.2% |
| Air transportation | 4.2% |
| Rail transportation | 11.9% |
| Road transportation | 4.5% |
| Maritime transportation | 8.4% |
| Courier and pipelines | 7.0% |
| Banks | 1.5% |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 8.7% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 6.0% |
When it comes to employers having a policy on drugs or alcohol use, more than 3 quarters of employees (77.0%) indicated that their employer had such a policy (Figure 9).Footnote 18 A relatively small proportion of employees (3.0%) indicated that their employer did not have such a policy, while about one in 5 employees (19.9%) did not know if such a policy existed. Across sectors, such a policy was the most frequent in rail transportation (97.3%) and the least common in banks (70.1%).
Figure 9: text version
| Sector | Share of employees who indicated that their employer has a policy on drug and alcohol use |
|---|---|
| All sectors | 77.0% |
| Air transportation | 87.3% |
| Rail transportation | 97.3% |
| Road transportation | 77.0% |
| Maritime transportation | 86.1% |
| Courier and pipelines | 75.4% |
| Banks | 70.1% |
| Feed, flour, seed and grain | 79.1% |
| Telecommunications and broadcasting | 76.3% |
Data source, methods, and notes to the reader
Data source and methods
The data source used for this report is the 2022 Survey of Employees under Federal Jurisdiction (SEFJ). The survey was conducted by Statistics Canada on behalf for the Labour Program of Employment and Social Development Canada. The aim of the survey was to collect data on the working conditions of employees working in federally regulated workplaces. Topics covered include: work hours, health and safety, work-life balance, exposure to workplace harassment and discrimination, as well as access to leaves, benefits, flexible work arrangements, and collective bargaining coverage. Statistics Canada distributed the survey to 37,500 employees in early 2022 (January to March). About 19,060 employees responded to the survey.
The survey targeted employees working for employers covered by Part III of the Canada Labour Code. Part III of the Canada Labour Code covers approximately 6% of employees in Canada. This includes employees working in the following 8 sectors: air transportation; rail transportation; road transportation; maritime transportation; courier services and pipelines; banks; feed, flour, seed and grain; and telecommunications and broadcasting. Henceforth, the terminology "federal jurisdiction" (FJ) is used to refer to these sectors. The survey did not collect data from employees working in various miscellaneous activities outside of these 8 sectors, such as certain federal Crown and shared governance corporations, federally regulated mines and companies engaged in the management of fisheries. First Nation band councils and related activities were also not included.
Notes to the reader
- The sample frame for the SEFJ was constructed using lists of employees known to work at establishments under federal jurisdiction. These lists were either provided by employers or derived from administrative data sources such as tax data. For some employers, employee lists were either not provided or they were not usable, which was a source of under coverage for the frame. This under coverage was most significant among large establishments in the postal wing of the courier services and pipeline sector and establishments in the rail transportation sector. It is a potential source of bias when calculating estimates within those domains. In addition, due to the under coverage of postal services and, consequently, the much larger contribution of courier services, the sector was renamed to "courier services and pipelines" from its original "postal services and pipelines".
- The pipeline industry is combined with the courier industry because it has a relatively small number of employees. Given limitations on sample size, statistics reported for this sector alone would likely conflict with Statistics Canada's confidentiality and data quality requirements for reporting statistics.
- The estimates presented in this report are based on valid responses only, invalid responses have been excluded.
- Where relevant, estimates may not sum to exactly 100% due to rounding.
- The SEFJ included questions on both sex at birth and gender. This report uses the variable "gender", which is consistent with the approach used in the most recent Census of Population. Given that the gender-diverse category did not have a sufficient size to be reported, gender-diverse responses were randomly aggregated among the binary gender categories by Statistics Canada. Respondents who declined to provide a response to the question "What is your gender" are treated as non-responses and are therefore excluded from the results reported by gender.
Page details
- Date modified: