College loses most bids to exclude staff from proposed CUPE unit

St. Thomas More College failed to exclude most of the additional positions it challenged from a proposed CUPE bargaining unit, after Saskatchewan's labour board drew a distinction between supervising work and exercising genuine managerial authority.

In CUPE v St. Thomas More, 2026 SKLRB 23, issued April 27, 2026, the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board accepted the college's request to exclude the executive assistant to the dean, but rejected the other disputed managerial and confidentiality exclusions.

The reasons addressed the proposed unit and voter eligibility in a certification proceeding. They did not announce a successful union vote or a final certification order.

Defining a non-academic bargaining unit

St. Thomas More is a Catholic college federated with the University of Saskatchewan. Although academically integrated with the university, it is financially and administratively distinct. Its faculty already had separate union representation.

CUPE applied in April 2025 to organize a group of approximately 30 to 35 non-academic employees. The college challenged the proposed unit’s boundaries, sought additional managerial and confidentiality exclusions, and argued that casual workers should not be included.

The board found the proposed unit viable for collective bargaining. A unit needed to be appropriate, not the single best arrangement conceivable for the workplace.

Casual library desk assistants and caretakers shared sufficient interests with the non-academic staff, particularly through their compensation framework. Student markers and proctors, casual research assistants and casual sacristans did not have to be included to make the unit appropriate.

The board accepted the college's direct evidence that casual employees did not receive the health benefits CUPE had suggested. Even so, the broader differences in pay structures and working relationships supported drawing the unit boundary as the union intended. It amended the proposed description to address the omitted exclusions.

A title or access to sensitive information was not decisive

Under the Saskatchewan Employment Act, managerial and confidentiality exclusions are narrow. The board considered whether a position's real responsibilities would create an irreconcilable conflict between obligations to management and membership in the bargaining unit.

The college sought additional exclusions for two program managers, an accounting clerk, the dean's executive assistant, an information technology supervisor and facilities supervisors. Numerous senior positions were already outside the proposed unit.

The program managers provided expert or strategic advice, but the board found its effect on bargaining-unit employment indirect. For example, enrolment changes could affect funding, but subsequent funding and staffing decisions were a separate step. That was not the direct impact required for the confidentiality exclusion.

The accounting clerk's access to sensitive financial information also did not suffice. The role principally processed information and provided it to the controller, who already supplied management with protected advice outside the proposed unit.

The dean's executive assistant was different. Evidence showed that the position supported interconnected senior leaders and worked with confidential information and advice directly affecting the proposed bargaining unit. The board therefore excluded it.

Supervision was not the same as management

The information technology supervisor helped with hiring and reprimands, but did not hold the effective final decision-making authority. Access to sensitive computer information involved protecting its security, rather than primarily advising management about matters directly affecting the unit.

The facilities supervisors similarly directed work and participated in discipline, but did not have effective independent authority to dismiss or suspend employees. Final hiring authority remained elsewhere. Requests for staffing resources or budget allocations did not, by themselves, turn their primary duties into confidential management advice.

The board assessed positions as they existed when the application was filed, declining to rely on proposed future changes to justify exclusions.

Written hearing found sufficient

Both parties had objected to deciding the dispute without an oral hearing. The board nevertheless found a full written process proportionate, with clear notice and sufficient opportunity to submit evidence and respond.

It recognized the importance of associational rights and said an oral hearing remains necessary where fairness, justice and proportionality require one. Here, it found no material credibility issue that prevented either side from presenting its case on the written record.

The procedural history included a March 30 order to count votes and an April 16 court stay of that count until the board provided reasons. The April 27 decision supplied those reasons and resolved the identified unit and eligibility disputes; its findings should not be confused with a report of the eventual voting result.