# LMO and employer paying for flights



## JohnMcD (Jan 16, 2013)

Hello all,

I'm currently waiting for an LMO to be approved for a construction position in Alberta. The interview and offer of work was organised through an employment agency in Ireland so I've had no direct contact with the employer since the interview.

There was no mention of paid flights at any stage. Does anyone know if the employer is legally obliged to pay for flights to Canada or can I take it that because it wasn't mentioned, that I'll probably have to pay for these myself?

Thanks.


----------



## Auld Yin (Mar 10, 2009)

On a scale of 10 I would say there's a 9.9 chance the employer will not pay your airfare(s).


----------



## Banner (Jan 18, 2013)

The employer is supposed to pay for your flight under the terms of the LMO.


----------



## Auld Yin (Mar 10, 2009)

Banner said:


> The employer is supposed to pay for your flight under the terms of the LMO.


Absolutely untrue. An applicant can try to extract the costs from the employer and so negotiate but most employers will not contemplate doing so. It all depends on how desperate they are to employ YOU.


----------



## JohnMcD (Jan 16, 2013)

Auld Yin said:


> On a scale of 10 I would say there's a 9.9 chance the employer will not pay your airfare(s).


 Yes, was thinking that myself as well. A bit of wishful thinking on my part there. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## JohnMcD (Jan 16, 2013)

Banner said:


> The employer is supposed to pay for your flight under the terms of the LMO.


Funny, I heard the same myself the other week and was curious to know was there any truth to it so I soured the Canadian government websites, but there's no mention anywhere. I think we were both misinformed on that one. Thanks for the reply anyway.


----------



## Banner (Jan 18, 2013)

JohnMcD said:


> Yes, was thinking that myself as well. A bit of wishful thinking on my part there. Thanks for the reply.


If you employ temporary foreign workers in occupations requiring lower levels of formal training (NOC C & D) occupations, you will also be asked to demonstrate that:

a signed employer-employee contract is in place;
you are providing private health care coverage until the temporary foreign worker is eligible for public health insurance;
you have registered the temporary foreign worker with the appropriate provincial workers compensation/workplace safety insurance plans;
you have paid the transportation costs for the worker to travel from his/her country of permanent residence to the location of work in Canada and for the return to the country of permanent residence;
you helped the temporary foreign worker find suitable, affordable accommodation; and
you have made no effort to recover any hiring costs from the temporary foreign worker.


----------



## Liam(at)Large (Sep 2, 2012)

This is for the TFWP pilot project, not standard TWP with LMO.



Banner said:


> If you employ temporary foreign workers in occupations requiring lower levels of formal training (NOC C & D) occupations, you will also be asked to demonstrate that:
> 
> a signed employer-employee contract is in place;
> you are providing private health care coverage until the temporary foreign worker is eligible for public health insurance;
> ...


----------



## JohnMcD (Jan 16, 2013)

Liam(at)Large said:


> This is for the TFWP pilot project, not standard TWP with LMO.


Yes that was my reading of it too. 

Have I got this right? :

The standard TWP relates to occupations with NOC codes O, A and B and *does not* require the employer to pay transportation costs.

The TFWP pilot project relates to occupations with NOC codes C and D and *does* require the employer to pay transportation costs.


List of NOC codes here: http://www5.hrsdc.gc.ca/noc/english/noc/2011/pdf/Matrix.pdf

So for example a supervisor or tradesman would _not_ qualify for flights but a tradesmans helper would. 
Is that correct or do I have it all wrong?


----------



## Liam(at)Large (Sep 2, 2012)

Correct.



JohnMcD said:


> Yes that was my reading of it too.
> 
> Have I got this right? :
> 
> ...


----------

