A Saskatchewan court has dismissed a judicial review application from SaskTel, upholding an arbitrator’s decision that expands employees’ bumping rights during surplus declarations.
The Court of King’s Bench ruling affirms that when SaskTel declares positions surplus, affected employees have the right to bump across their entire job classification rather than only within narrower sub-groups defined by bracketed job titles.
At issue was the interpretation of a provision in the collective agreement between SaskTel and Unifor Locals 1S and 2S governing the redeployment of employees from surplus positions.
For several decades, SaskTel had applied the surplus declaration provision by confining bumping rights to employees within the same “bracketed” job function (for example, treating “Administrative Assistant (Payroll)” and “Administrative Assistant (Reception)” as different classifications for bumping purposes). The union had long acquiesced to this practice but eventually challenged it.
In 2019, after raising concerns in 2011 and 2017, the union issued an estoppel notice indicating it would enforce the strict language of the collective agreement. Following new surplus declarations, the union filed a grievance arguing that all employees within a job classification should be included in the surplus declaration process, not just those holding a particular job title within that classification.
Arbitrator’s findings
The arbitrator ruled in favour of the union, finding that the term “classification” as used in the surplus declaration provision was unambiguous and should not be limited by bracketed job titles.
“The bracketed qualifiers used by SaskTel to administer the provisions of Article 11 of the Agreement were a unilateral construct and the sole creation of the Company, were never negotiated for nor agreed to with and by the Union nor any of its predecessors,” the arbitrator stated in the decision.
The arbitrator concluded that where the collective agreement simply referred to “classification” without qualifying language, the parties had not agreed to limit the term’s meaning, whereas provisions that expressly used classifications with bracketed descriptors indicated the parties had agreed to qualify the meaning in those specific instances.
Court upholds arbitrator’s decision
SaskTel sought judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision, arguing it was unreasonable on several grounds:
- The arbitrator allegedly failed to consider the purpose and factual context of the surplus declaration provision
- The arbitrator purportedly followed outdated principles of contract interpretation
- The interpretation ignored practical implications and administrative feasibility
- The decision made factual errors regarding the parties’ historical use of bracketed job titles
The court rejected each argument, finding the arbitrator’s decision reasonable.
Practical implications
The court acknowledged SaskTel’s concerns about disruption. The company’s witnesses had testified that its interpretation minimized impacts on operations and affected employees, while the union’s approach could potentially involve “many tens of employees being bumped, in a ‘cascading fashion,’ before the most junior employee in the classification would be reached.”
However, the court noted that the collective agreement included protections against unlimited bumping. The surplus declaration provision requires that both the designated employee and the bumped employee must be able to meet the requirements of their new positions “with a reasonable amount of retraining, not to exceed eight weeks.”
This limitation addresses “SaskTel’s concern that employees who do not have required qualifications and skills could be swept up in the chain bumping process, by incorporating a retraining limit,” the court stated.
Standard of review
The court applied the reasonableness standard established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov. Citing a Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision, the court explained that “a reasonableness review is concerned with a decision-maker’s reasoning process and the outcomes of the decision. It determines whether the decision in question is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis that is defensible in relation to the relevant facts and the law.”
After reviewing the arbitrator’s analysis, the court concluded the decision was justified and followed “an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis.” The court found the decision was “supportable, given the relevant facts and the applicable law governing contractual interpretation” and “falls within a range of defensible outcomes.”
Estoppel notice effective
The court also upheld the arbitrator’s finding that the union’s estoppel notice was effective in bringing an end to its previous acquiescence. This meant the union could insist on following the strict wording of the surplus declaration provision after giving SaskTel notice of its intention to do so.
SaskTel had argued that where past practice is used to interpret an ambiguous provision, one party cannot terminate the effect of past practice by giving notice. However, since the arbitrator had reasonably found the term “classification” was unambiguous, the estoppel notice was effective.
For more information, see Saskatchewan Telecommunications v Unifor, Locals 1S and 2S, 2025 SKKB 61 (CanLII).
