Saskatchewan union wins correction to craft-unit ruling but still loses certification

A Saskatchewan construction union persuaded the Labour Relations Board to correct its reasoning about a proposed bargaining unit, but still failed to obtain certification because there were no eligible voters.

In SMART v ServcoCanada, 2026 SKLRB 44, decided August 19, 2026, the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board found that a standard craft unit with one employee was appropriate when the application was filed. It nevertheless left the certification application dismissed, changing the reason to an unsuccessful representation vote rather than an inappropriate bargaining unit.

The mixed result separates two questions that matter in union organizing: whether a proposed group is suitable for collective bargaining and whether the union has the employee support required for certification. Success on the first did not overcome the absence of anyone eligible to vote.

One day of work, then a layoff

Sheet Metal Air Rail and Transportation (SMART) Local 296 applied for certification on October 17, 2024, the same day ServcoCanada hired a sheet metal worker. The company laid him off the next day.

The board’s original decision, issued in 2025, treated the hiring as unusual and found that the employer did not intend to directly employ sheet metal workers. It dismissed the proposed bargaining unit as inappropriate because there were no employees in it.

The board had also found an unfair labour practice in the worker’s termination. However, its remedy was a declaration, not reinstatement or monetary compensation. SMART sought reconsideration of the certification analysis.

The union argued that the original reasoning placed too much weight on the employer’s intentions and could prevent sheet metal workers from organizing in the future. The employer responded that the board had exercised its discretion properly and that the requirements for reopening the decision were not met.

The relevant point was the application date

Reconsideration is an exceptional process, not simply another chance to argue a case. The board examined whether its earlier order had operated in an unexpected way and whether the ruling set a precedent needing clarification.

It rejected the claim that the decision, combined with other labour cases, created a future bar to organizing. Its discussion explained that different bargaining structures could still be considered on their particular facts. It also considered a July 2026 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision concerning the use of prior findings in later certification proceedings.

But the board identified a narrower problem in its original reasoning. Saskatchewan’s employment legislation gives it discretion to reject evidence of events occurring after a certification application is filed. The original decision had not addressed that discretion when relying on the worker’s subsequent termination and the employer’s intentions about future employment.

The board explained that controlling post-application evidence helps prevent parties from changing workplace circumstances to influence a certification case. It is not an absolute ban on later evidence, but the decision-maker must consider whether using that evidence is appropriate.

On reconsideration, the board excluded the termination evidence for the purpose of deciding whether the bargaining unit was appropriate. It also found that evidence about the employer’s future intentions was unnecessary to that question. Viewed at the application date, the proposed unit was a standard craft unit with one employee and was appropriate.

An appropriate unit was not enough

The certification application still failed at the voting stage. Under the board’s policy, an employee must be employed both when the application is filed and when the representation vote takes place to be eligible to vote.

The sheet metal worker had been employed on the application date but not on the voting date. Because the earlier unfair labour practice remedy did not reinstate him, there were no eligible voters and the union could not obtain the majority support required by the legislation.

The board declined to reopen the earlier decision to grant only a declaration for the unfair labour practice. In explaining that remedy, the original panel had found that an expected three-week assignment was not confirmed by management or documents, that the duration of available work was unclear and that there was no evidence of ongoing economic harm or lost opportunity. The reconsideration panel found no sufficient basis to intervene in that discretionary remedy.

The unanimous decision therefore granted reconsideration and amended the dismissal order, but did not certify SMART, reinstate the worker or award compensation. The correction matters to the legal reasoning about craft units; it did not change the outcome of this particular certification application.