The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board has determined that Atco Frontec Ltd. is the true employer of workers at the BHP Jansen Discovery Lodge, rejecting the company’s argument that a joint venture with an Indigenous development corporation should be recognized as the employer for labour relations purposes.
The ruling clears the way for Unite Here Local 47 to proceed with certification as the bargaining agent for approximately 100 employees at the remote work camp, despite Atco’s claims that Wicehtowak Frontec Services — a joint venture between Atco and George Gordon Developments Ltd. — was the actual employer.
Joint venture structure challenged
The dispute arose when Unite Here filed for certification in March 2024, naming Atco as the employer. Atco argued that the joint venture, formed with George Gordon Developments Ltd. (an Indigenous corporation), was awarded the BHP contract and should be recognized as the employer.
Under the joint venture arrangement, George Gordon Developments holds a 51% stake while Atco owns 49%. The structure was designed to build Indigenous capacity in camp operations, with Atco serving as project manager responsible for day-to-day operations.
However, the labour board found that despite the joint venture’s existence, Atco maintained “fundamental control” over all employment matters at the site.
Contractual authority examined
The board’s analysis focused heavily on the joint venture and management services agreements between the parties. These documents designated Atco as the “Project Manager” with broad authority over operational and employment decisions.
The agreements granted Atco exclusive control over hiring, discipline, payroll, termination and employment policies. While consultation with George Gordon Developments was encouraged, the contracts did not require joint decision-making on employment matters.
“All final employment and contracting decisions shall be made by the Project Manager,” the joint venture agreement stated, with Atco filling that role.
The management services agreement further authorized Atco to “select and negotiate with a union, if required” and handle all aspects of employee relations, from hiring to termination.
Employee testimony proves decisive
Three employees testified about their workplace experience, providing compelling evidence that Atco functioned as their employer in practice.
A.S., who worked at the site since September 2023, testified that she was hired through Atco’s HR department and received an offer letter on Atco letterhead. Her pay stubs, T4 slips and benefits documents all identified Atco as her employer.
She described being “shocked and disturbed” when told at a March 2025 meeting that employees were actually WFS workers, not Atco employees. She called it “an orchestrated attempt to change the narrative.”
A second employee, A.B., provided similar testimony about being hired and paid by Atco, with all employment documents bearing the Atco name.
Both witnesses said they had never seen any reference to the joint venture as their employer in hiring materials, training documents or other workplace communications until the March meeting.
Job posting inconsistencies highlighted
A union representative testified that online job searches consistently showed Atco as the employer for positions at the Jansen site. Screenshots of job postings submitted as evidence showed Atco branding and directed applicants to Atco’s website, with no mention of the joint venture.
Atco’s witness attributed these postings to “administrative error,” claiming the recruitment team sometimes reused outdated materials. However, the board found this explanation “unpersuasive, particularly given the volume and consistency of the Atco-branded postings.”
True employer test applied
The board applied the seven-factor test established in York Condominium to determine the true employer:
- Direction and control over employees
- Financial responsibility for wages
- Authority to discipline
- Hiring authority
- Dismissal authority
- Employee perception
- Intent to create employment relationship
On each factor, the evidence pointed to Atco as the controlling party. The board found that while George Gordon Developments had a consultative role, it lacked independent authority over employment decisions.
Operational reality vs. agreements
Witnesses for both Atco and George Gordon Developments argued that the practical reality differed from the written agreements, with decisions made jointly through collaboration.
However, the board rejected these claims, finding them “not supported by sufficient or credible evidence.” The board emphasized that contractual terms could not be overridden by vague assertions about collaborative practices.
The board noted that if actual practice truly differed from the agreements, “detailed evidence explaining how such a practice functions” would be expected, including “who makes final decisions, how authority is delegated, and how this arrangement is communicated to employees and third parties.”
Indigenous employment considerations
The ruling acknowledged the joint venture’s goal of advancing Indigenous participation in economic development. Approximately 37-40% of the workforce is Indigenous, and the arrangement aimed to build capacity for eventual Indigenous control of operations.
However, the board concluded that these worthy objectives did not change the reality of who controlled employment matters. “While these goals are commendable, the joint venture does not exercise operational control over the workforce,” the board stated.
Disclosure concerns noted
The board expressed concern that both companies initially failed to disclose the joint venture and management services agreements voluntarily. The documents were only produced after a formal disclosure order.
The board called this lack of transparency concerning, particularly since both agreements were central to the companies’ arguments about the joint venture structure.
Certification to proceed
With Atco confirmed as the true employer, the board ordered that certification ballots held since March 2024 be counted. The union had applied to represent all employees except managers, office staff, security and maintenance trades personnel.
The ruling ensures that the party with actual authority over employment matters will be at the bargaining table if certification succeeds, promoting “effective and stable labour relations.”
For more information, see Unite Here, Local 47 v Atco Frontec Ltd., 2025 SKLRB 24 (CanLII).
