City Centre Bingo committed an unfair labour practice by resisting a union-selected bargaining representative because he was no longer considered an employee, the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board ruled.
In SEIU-West v City Centre Bingo, 2026 SKLRB 3, dated January 21, 2026, the board found that the employer could not make participation in the union’s bargaining team depend on current employment. It nevertheless rejected a separate allegation that the employer had failed to bargain in good faith.
The remedy was a declaration. By the time of the decision, the employer had stopped objecting to the representative’s participation and bargaining had continued with him involved. The board found no ongoing conduct requiring a cessation order or other relief.
A disputed representative delayed the response
SEIU-West was certified to represent employees of Saskatoon Twin Charities Inc., operating as City Centre Bingo, in December 2019. The parties had spent several years negotiating without reaching a first collective agreement as of fall 2025.
When the union sought to resume bargaining in November 2024, the employer said the disputed representative had resigned and that an active employee should instead attend. A separate proceeding concerned his employment status.
The union delivered a comprehensive bargaining proposal on January 17, 2025. The employer initially requested time to review it. When the union followed up in late February, the employer said responding was difficult until the representative’s employment status was resolved.
The union filed its complaint on April 9, 2025. The following day, the employer offered to meet but said the representative could attend only as an observer. In June, it answered the union’s proposal and confirmed that it no longer objected to his participation.
The board decided the case on written evidence and submissions, finding no substantial conflict in the parties’ communications.
Employment status did not determine eligibility
The employer argued that the complaint should be dismissed for delay. The board declined to determine liability for events more than 90 days before the complaint, citing the union’s sophistication and the parties’ extensive litigation history. Older events remained relevant as background.
The actionable period covered the January proposal through the April filing. Within that period, making a response conditional on resolving the representative’s status amounted to refusing to bargain with part of the union’s team.
Section 6-62(1)(d) of The Saskatchewan Employment Act protects bargaining with union representatives whether or not they work for the employer. The board applied that wording and longstanding precedent recognizing that a union may choose representatives from outside the workplace.
The union did not have to include an active employee on its committee. Nor could the employer assign a lesser role to someone the union had selected. The later offer of observer status supported the board’s conclusion that the employer had not been treating him as a full bargaining representative.
A narrower finding than general bad-faith bargaining
The board separately considered the duty under section 6-7 to bargain in good faith and make reasonable efforts to reach an agreement.
Although the employer’s position on participation was impermissible, it had not taken that position to impasse. It continued seeking bargaining dates and provided a counterproposal. The board found that its conduct during the period under review did not establish a failure to make reasonable efforts to reach an agreement.
The result therefore distinguished two obligations: the employer breached the union’s right to bargain through its chosen representatives, but the broader good-faith allegation failed. The decision did not settle the separate employment-status dispute or impose the terms of a first collective agreement.
