Sperling wins wage appeal after board rejects constructive-dismissal finding

The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board has allowed a distillery’s wage-assessment appeal after finding that changes to a benefits provider and pay frequency did not support constructive dismissal on the facts established below.

In Sperling Silver Distilleries Ltd. and Adam Sperling v. Donald Meek and Director of Employment Standards, 2026 SKLRB 26, dated May 14, 2026, the board cancelled the adjudicator’s decision upholding a $473.17 assessment. It substituted its own determination rather than ordering another hearing.

The result turned on the proper constructive-dismissal test and the limits of a law-only appeal. The board did not reweigh the evidence or adopt a general rule that changes to pay arrangements can never justify leaving employment.

A job offer during a business change

Donald Meek began working for Sperling in September 2022. According to the adjudicator’s findings, Brandt took over the business on June 16, 2025, and offered him a position three days later. The new business was called Queen City Distillery.

The offer involved a different benefits carrier and payment every two weeks rather than twice a month. Meek did not accept it. He was advised of a scheduled June 21 shift with Sperling but deliberately did not attend.

The adjudicator found that the missed shift amounted to a resignation, yet also concluded that the June 19 offer had already constructively dismissed him. That conclusion supported the wage assessment for termination-related pay.

Sperling and Adam Sperling challenged the legal analysis. The director of employment standards defended the decision and argued that any necessary reconsideration should be sent back to the adjudicator. Meek did not file submissions or attend the board’s oral argument.

Not every contractual change is substantial

The board’s jurisdiction under the Saskatchewan Employment Act was limited to questions of law. It could correct a separable legal error, but otherwise remained bound by the adjudicator’s factual findings.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Potter, the board explained that the contractual-change branch of constructive dismissal requires two inquiries. The employer’s conduct must breach the employment contract, and the breach must substantially alter an essential term when assessed objectively from the position of a reasonable employee.

The adjudicator had not identified or meaningfully applied that second inquiry. Calling the changes significant did not establish that essential contractual terms had been substantially altered.

On benefits, the only identified change was the carrier’s identity. There was no evidence of different benefit entitlements. Even assuming a breach, the board considered that change minor on the record before it.

The pay-frequency change meant 26 pay periods a year instead of 24. There was no evidence of a change in total compensation, and the adjudicator had not explained why the timing change objectively breached an essential term.

The established facts permitted a final decision

The director also relied on a possible transfer of Meek’s employment to Brandt. The board accepted that a finding of transfer could have supported termination or constructive dismissal, but the adjudicator had made no such finding.

Instead, the findings were that Meek received an offer, still had a shift with Sperling and intentionally did not work it. Advising him of a future shift was not an unequivocal act by Sperling ending the employment relationship, and the findings disclosed no employer action justifying repudiation of the contract.

The board recognized that Meek might have intended to reject Brandt’s offer rather than resign from Sperling. But the adjudicator had made a resignation finding based on both conduct and intent, and no separable legal error permitted the board to reweigh it.

Better communication would have helped clarify the options, the board said. That did not supply the missing finding of termination or a substantial contractual breach.

Because the established facts supported resignation rather than termination or constructive dismissal, the board held that the wage assessment could not stand. It allowed the appeal and cancelled the adjudicator’s decision without remitting the matter.