The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) has ruled that employees of the Technical Safety Authority of Saskatchewan (TSASK) represented by two separate unions will be consolidated into a single bargaining unit represented by the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees’ Union (SGEU).
The decision confirms that a representation vote will not be held, despite objections from Unifor, one of the affected unions.
In the decision, Vice-Chairperson Carol L. Kraft outlined the key issues surrounding TSASK’s application to consolidate its bargaining units under a single union. TSASK had sought to integrate its operations and workforce, which currently includes employees represented by SGEU and Unifor, Local 649. The application involved amending certification orders to consolidate employees into one bargaining unit, streamlining the collective bargaining process as TSASK’s responsibilities expanded.
TSASK, a not-for-profit corporation, oversees the registration, inspection, certification, and licensing of safety-sensitive equipment in Saskatchewan. As part of its evolving operational structure, the company took on additional responsibilities for gas and electrical inspections, previously managed by Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower). This led to the integration of employees who previously belonged to separate unions, triggering the need for consolidation.
The board found that TSASK’s acquisition of gas and electrical inspection responsibilities constituted a “material change” in the scope of its workforce. As a result, TSASK sought to consolidate the bargaining units represented by SGEU and Unifor into a single unit. Both TSASK and the unions agreed that employees shared a community of interest, based on their overlapping duties and qualifications, making a consolidated unit appropriate for collective bargaining.
Unifor sought vote
Unifor, however, argued that a representation vote should be held to determine which union would represent the newly consolidated unit. Unifor contended that without a vote, employees could be deprived of their right to choose their preferred bargaining agent. They referenced previous board decisions, including Teamsters Canada Rail Conference v. Big Sky Rail Corp., to support their argument for a vote in cases involving multiple bargaining agents.
Unifor also cited the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), arguing that employee choice in selecting their bargaining agent is a fundamental right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. “The degree of choice required by the Charter is one that enables employees to have effective input into the selection of their collective goals,” Unifor’s submission quoted from the Mounted Police decision.
SGEU opposed vote
Despite Unifor’s arguments, SGEU maintained that a vote was unnecessary, as the number of Unifor-represented employees was significantly smaller than those represented by SGEU. At the time of the application, SGEU represented 36 employees, while Unifor represented six. SGEU asserted that consolidating the Unifor employees into their larger unit, without a vote, would not disrupt labour relations and would align with previous board rulings on successorship cases.
The board agreed with SGEU, determining that a representational vote was not required given the disparity in the size of the bargaining units. Citing its previous decision in Big Sky Rail, the board explained that while representation votes can be ordered in successorship cases, they are not mandatory, particularly when there is a significant disparity between the sizes of the unions involved.
“The board has generally speaking, not exercised this discretion where there is a ‘large disparity’ in the size of the intermingled groups,” the ruling stated. The board found that the Unifor-represented employees, constituting only 14.28% of the resulting consolidated unit, did not meet the threshold typically required for a vote.
The ruling also addressed concerns raised by Unifor about employee choice, noting that while freedom of association is a relevant factor in successorship cases, employee choice is not an absolute right. The board pointed out that the existing majoritarian regime, which allows a larger union to subsume a smaller one, aligns with the principles of collective bargaining.
In its final order, the SLRB directed that the SGEU bargaining unit be certified as the appropriate bargaining unit for TSASK employees, and that the Unifor bargaining unit be “swept-in” without the need for a vote. The ruling also provided for the dovetailing of seniority lists, ensuring that employees from both units retain their accumulated seniority under the new collective agreement with SGEU.
For more information, see Technical Safety Authority of Saskatchewan v Saskatchewan Government And General Employees’ Union, 2024 CanLII 88819 (SK LRB).
