Emmanuel House relief workers win recognition of separate bargaining unit

A divided Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Relations Board has cleared the way for casual relief counsellors at Emmanuel House to organize in their own bargaining unit, rejecting the argument that irregular shifts left them without a sufficient connection to the workplace.

In its June 15, 2026 decision, NAPE and Stella’s Circle Community Services Inc. (Emmanuel House), 2026 NLLRB #13, File 5931, the board’s majority found the proposed all-casual unit appropriate for collective bargaining. It said a rigid approach to workplace attachment would disproportionately limit the workers’ freedom of association.

The decision defines an appropriate unit. It does not set wages, award compensation or establish the terms of a collective agreement.

Relief workers sought a separate unit

Emmanuel House is a residential counselling program operated by Stella’s Circle in St. John’s. Its relief counsellors fill shifts when regular employees are absent. They can decline work without penalty, have no fixed schedule and may work for other organizations.

NAPE had previously applied to represent employees at Emmanuel House. In that earlier proceeding, most relief workers were excluded because their work was sporadic, although two were included because of their particular working patterns. The union then applied in November 2022 for a separate unit covering the remaining casual and relief workers.

Stella’s Circle argued that this repeated an issue already decided. It also said a separate unit would fragment the workplace unnecessarily because the relief workers performed substantially the same work as employees already represented by NAPE.

The union answered that excluding casual workers from the existing unit and then refusing them a separate one would effectively shut them out of collective bargaining altogether. It was willing to consider an application to consolidate the units if certification was granted.

Irregular hours were not decisive

The majority considered both the Labour Relations Act’s definition of employee and the board’s obligation to decide whether a proposed unit is appropriate. That assessment involves a community of interest: similarities in work, skills, supervision and other employment conditions, alongside whether bargaining can function effectively.

The legislation expressly excludes certain groups, such as managers, but does not exclude casual workers. The majority said the law’s purpose of enabling effective employee representation favoured a broad interpretation.

These counsellors had the same qualifications and performed substantially the same duties as permanent employees at the same facility. They worked under the same management and formed a necessary pool that allowed the round-the-clock service to continue when regular staff were absent.

Seven of the eight workers in the proposed unit had signed union membership cards in good standing. The majority concluded that their ability to refuse shifts should not outweigh the practical ties connecting them to the workplace.

It also applied Charter freedom-of-association principles when exercising its statutory discretion. In the majority’s view, strict adherence to the previous attachment test could not justify excluding this group entirely from meaningful collective bargaining.

Dissent favoured the established approach

Board member Roseanne Saturley disagreed. She said earlier panels had already considered employee rights individually and assessed working hours and workplace attachment. Those decisions had sometimes included relief workers where their particular circumstances justified it.

Her dissent emphasized that the same workplace and group had recently been considered, and saw no reason to depart from the board’s established approach.

The majority acknowledged the importance of consistency but said an earlier panel could not bind every later panel regardless of the facts and Charter considerations. It found no evidence that this separate unit would cause serious labour-relations problems or undue fragmentation.

The resulting unit covers Emmanuel House’s casual and relief workers, excluding non-working supervisors and higher-ranking supervisors, as well as full-time and part-time workers already covered by existing units. The ruling turns on this workforce’s operational role and the evidence before the board; it does not eliminate the need to assess whether other proposed bargaining units are appropriate.