Carlton Trail College must justify excluding new manager from union, board rules

Carlton Trail College bore the burden of proving that a new student-support management position should be excluded from its unionized workforce, Saskatchewan’s Labour Relations Board ruled, despite an agreement temporarily treating the job as outside the bargaining unit.

The February 27, 2026 decision in Carlton Trail College v Saskatchewan Government and General Employees’ Union, 2026 SKLRB 15 resolved who had to prove the case. It did not decide whether the Student Supports and Engagement Manager ultimately belonged inside or outside the union’s unit.

That distinction mattered because SGEU represented an all-employee bargaining unit with specified exceptions. The board’s usual approach requires an employer creating a new position to justify excluding it from that coverage.

A temporary arrangement, not a concession

The dispute arose from a June 2024 letter of understanding addressing several positions at the college. The parties agreed that the Student Supports and Engagement Manager would be treated as outside the bargaining unit for one year from the date someone was hired into the role.

During that period, either side could ask the board to decide the position’s status. If an application was made, the job would remain outside the unit until the board decided. If neither side applied within the year, the exclusion would cease to be provisional.

Crucially, the agreement expressly preserved the union’s position: agreeing to temporary treatment did not mean accepting that the job properly belonged outside the bargaining unit.

SGEU referred the dispute to the board in August 2025. The college then asked for a preliminary ruling on the burden of proof, which was heard in January 2026.

An agreement was not the same as a board ruling

The college argued that the union was seeking to change an agreed arrangement and should therefore have to show why the position should be included. It relied on an earlier University of Regina case involving a provisional exclusion ordered by the board.

The board found an important difference. In that earlier case, the board had already heard evidence and legal arguments, with the employer carrying the burden of justifying exclusion. A later challenge to that provisional decision started from a determination the board had actually made.

At Carlton Trail, no equivalent hearing or determination had occurred. The union had agreed to a temporary arrangement while expressly reserving its right to contest the job’s status. Treating that agreement as though the employer had already proved its case would skip the first assessment altogether.

The college also argued that the union had referred a dispute rather than formally applied to amend the certification order. The board said that label did not change its authority or the issue it had to determine. It could make the necessary orders, including amending the certification where appropriate.

If the job fell within the existing all-employee unit, no new exclusion would be needed. If the college established that the job should be excluded, the certification would require an amendment adding that exception.

The panel ordered that the college bear the burden in the underlying scope dispute. The practical result was a rule about proving an exclusion—not a finding that the manager had joined the bargaining unit, nor a general prohibition on employers and unions making temporary arrangements.