Saskatchewan Polytechnic faculty union wins provisional assignment of belonging coordinator

Saskatchewan’s Labour Relations Board assigned a new Belonging Coordinator position at Saskatchewan Polytechnic to its faculty association on a provisional basis, finding that the job’s cultural education and student-support responsibilities outweighed a presumption favouring the institution’s other union.

In Saskatchewan Polytechnic v SPFA and SGEU, 2026 SKLRB 18, reasons released March 16, 2026 explained a June 16, 2025 order assigning the position to the Saskatchewan Polytechnic Faculty Association for one year. The decision also brought together eight factors for allocating jobs between competing bargaining units and corrected an earlier account of the institution’s union history.

The ruling concerned which union would represent the position, not whether the work should be unionized. Both the faculty association and the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees’ Union held broadly worded certifications covering employees at Saskatchewan Polytechnic, subject to exclusions.

Why the job’s substance mattered

The proposed coordinator would develop equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives, give advice and training, connect students with supports, and help build an inclusive campus community. Both unions could point to existing members doing related work. Saskatchewan Polytechnic took no position on which union should receive the job.

For the faculty association, the closest comparison was an Indigenous Centre Services Coordinator. For SGEU, it was a Student Engagement Coordinator whose duties included orientation, student-life programming and links to community resources.

The board found that developing inclusion initiatives and providing cultural advice and training more closely resembled work in the faculty association’s unit. The proposed training was not curriculum instruction, but that did not prevent it from sharing the substance of cultural education and student-support roles already represented by the association.

The anticipated skills, potential movement into other jobs and collective-bargaining interests also favoured the faculty association. The board identified connections with counselling, social work and cultural education, while recognizing that final educational requirements would be developed with the appropriate union.

Union history was important, but not decisive

An earlier decision had treated SGEU as the default bargaining unit for new positions, partly on an account of the faculty association emerging from an existing broad SGEU unit.

The board revisited that history. The institution originally had separate academic and non-academic bargaining units, both represented by SGEU. The faculty association later took over representation of the academic unit; it had not created that unit by carving it out of a single all-employee unit.

The board nevertheless retained a rebuttable presumption favouring SGEU. It rejected the idea that the faculty association’s present certification was confined strictly to academic jobs. The wording of both certifications and the actual work had to be considered, rather than treating historical labels as conclusive.

Here, the similarities between positions and their shared bargaining interests were sufficient to overcome the default presumption.

Eight factors, not a job-title shortcut

The board consolidated its approach around job similarities, shared employment interests, the history of the position and bargaining units, labour-relations stability, economy and efficiency, broader bargaining units, safety, and employer preference.

The remaining considerations did not tip this dispute either way. There was no evidence that assigning this one position would undermine either bargaining relationship. The employer’s neutrality also meant its preference added no weight.

The board confirmed that an employer’s preference can matter when supported by genuine operational or labour-relations considerations. It does not replace the board’s responsibility to decide where a position belongs.

The panel described the assignment as a close decision based on the job as then conceived. A role that developed in practice closer to SGEU’s Student Engagement Coordinator could warrant reconsideration.

The one-year order was therefore significant: the legislation permits a provisional assignment to become final after a year unless a party applies within that period to vary it. The March reasons explain the initial assignment and its basis; they do not themselves decide a later variation application or establish how the position ultimately developed.