Affinity union complaint survives early dismissal despite bargaining-unit exclusion

Saskatchewan’s Labour Relations Board has refused to dismiss a union complaint alleging that Affinity Credit Union backed away from an agreement to refer a bargaining-unit dispute to the board, even though a ratified collective agreement expressly excluded the employees concerned.

The unanimous January 29, 2026 decision in United Food and Commercial Workers, Local No. 1400 v Affinity Credit Union, 2026 SKLRB 8 also allowed the union to amend its unfair labour practice application. Vice-chair Patricia Warwick sat with panel members Linda Dennis and Chris Boychuk.

The ruling did not establish that Affinity made or breached the alleged agreement, committed an unfair labour practice, or had to include the employees in the bargaining unit. It found an arguable case requiring evidence and legal argument rather than a decision on the pleadings alone.

A disputed commitment alongside an express exclusion

The parties had an established collective bargaining relationship. Employees at Affinity’s St. Mary’s location were excluded under the certification order. Affinity closed that location, opened the Aspen Ridge Advice Center and moved the former St. Mary’s employees there.

A new collective agreement, negotiated between August 2024 and March 2025 and ratified by union members on April 17, 2025, expressly excluded employees at the St. Mary’s/Aspen Ridge Advice Centre. Affinity argued that this language answered the dispute: the membership had accepted the exclusion, Aspen Ridge was an extension of St. Mary’s, and the union should not relitigate the agreement through an unfair labour practice complaint.

The union alleged a separate commitment made during bargaining: the parties had agreed that the board would determine the Aspen Ridge scope issue, but Affinity subsequently proceeded on the basis that the employees were excluded. Affinity denied making an agreement to refer the question to the board and maintained that the employees properly remained outside the certification order.

The union filed its complaint on July 10, 2025. Affinity sought summary dismissal later that month, and the union applied in August to correct dates and add details to its pleading. The complaint invoked section 6-4 of The Saskatchewan Employment Act, protecting employees’ organizing and collective bargaining rights, and clauses 6-62(1)(a), (b) and (d), addressing interference with protected rights or labour organizations and refusal to bargain.

Why the collective agreement did not end the complaint

Clause 6-111(1)(p) permits the board to summarily dismiss a matter for lack of evidence or no arguable case. For the no-arguable-case ground advanced here, the board applied a restrictive test: assuming the applicant could prove its allegations, was it plain and obvious that the case had no reasonable chance of success?

That assessment was confined to the application, particulars supplied in response to a demand, and documents referred to in the application on which the applicant relied. It was not an occasion to weigh competing evidence, assess credibility or resolve novel statutory interpretations. Both parties relied on the same established test but disagreed about its application.

The board identified the central allegation as Affinity having agreed to refer the scope question to it and then withdrawn from that agreement. If proved, those allegations could support a statutory breach or unfair labour practice. The board found that the collective agreement’s exclusion was not a complete answer to the allegation about a separate agreement between the parties.

That distinction, rather than any finding that the union’s account was true, allowed the complaint to proceed. The board emphasized the low threshold for an arguable case and the union’s continuing obligation to prove its allegations at a hearing. It reached that conclusion on the original complaint; the proposed amendments would clarify facts without changing its basic allegation.

Corrections did not transform the dispute

The proposed amendments changed meeting dates and clarified the sequence of discussions about the proper forum. They also added details about a bargaining proposal, events at the ratification meeting and correspondence concerning an alleged joint approach to the board.

The union said the changes corrected an error and supplied information needed to decide the real dispute. Affinity argued that they fundamentally rewrote a sworn application, introduced conflicting facts and would force it to reassess and answer a different case. It also argued that any prejudice could not be compensated through costs because, in its submission, the board lacked authority to award them.

Section 6-112 gives the board broad discretion to permit amendments on terms it considers just so that the real questions in dispute can be determined. Drawing on principles it had adopted from Saskatchewan appellate authority, the board examined three matters: whether the amendments served a proper purpose, whether they were proper pleadings, and whether they would prejudice Affinity in a way that could not be remedied.

The changes met the proper-purpose requirement. Correcting factual details and adding supporting information would help identify the actual dispute. Although dates and details changed, the underlying allegation—that Affinity had made and then departed from an agreement—remained the same.

The board also found the amendments to be proper pleadings. They did not fall within grounds analogous to those for striking court pleadings, such as disclosing no reasonable claim, being frivolous or vexatious, impairing a fair hearing or constituting an abuse of process. It noted that Affinity had not raised a substantive concern on that part of the test.

On prejudice, the board relied on the early stage of the proceeding and the unchanged substance of the allegations. Affinity had not meaningfully demonstrated that the amendments would require additional reassessment or response. Having found no prejudice, the board did not decide the costs-jurisdiction issue raised by the employer. Arguments about the original pleading being sworn and the risk of encouraging shifting allegations did not alter its application of the three-part test.

The board dismissed Affinity’s summary-dismissal application in file 148-25 and granted the union’s amendment application in file 130-25. The decision preserves a route to testing the alleged bargaining commitment; it does not resolve the bargaining-unit boundary or the underlying unfair labour practice allegations.