The customer sales contracts showing commissioning is part of the equipment purchase, a written supervision plan naming the affiliate manager who assigns and reviews his work, and the company's commissioning procedure that he follows on site. Together they show the placement is not labour for hire.
Prove the chain of control on paper
The offsite rule looks at two things: who principally controls and supervises the employee, and whether the work is connected to the petitioner's specialized knowledge or is simply labour supplied to another employer. For a commissioning technologist the contracts are the first proof, because they show the farmer or elevator bought a system with start-up included and has no separate agreement to employ him. The supervision plan is the second, and it should say who schedules his site visits, who he reports to daily, who evaluates his work and who can reassign him. The commissioning procedure is the third, because following the company's own document on site demonstrates that the knowledge, not the customer's instruction, is driving the work. Add a sample site report from a Canadian installation so the officer can see what a commissioning visit produces. Avoid any wording that has the customer directing his hours or tasks.
Hypothetical example: a grain-elevator customer asks the technologist to stay on site for three weeks after commissioning and to follow the customer's maintenance supervisor. Review the sales contract, work order and supervision plan before agreeing. Those records settle whether the affiliate retains control and whether the visit remains connected to the firm's specialized process. If the customer assigns daily tasks, approves leave or uses the employee as general maintenance labour, revise the arrangement or obtain a different analysis. Put redacted system specifications and a sample internal report behind the commercial documents to show what specialized knowledge the employee applies. A common mistake is filing only a customer invitation; it proves a location, not the petitioner's continuing control.