SaskPower must notify union of new excluded jobs, labour board rules

SaskPower must give its electrical workers’ union actual notice when it creates new positions outside the bargaining unit, Saskatchewan’s Labour Relations Board has ruled, while leaving the fate of the disputed jobs for another stage.

In IBEW, 2067 v SaskPower, 2026 SKLRB 46, dated August 21, 2026, the board also held that SaskPower bears the burden of justifying an exclusion when the union challenges it within the collective agreement’s time limits. The agreement allows the company to fill a new management position immediately, but does not eliminate its notice obligations.

The ruling answered three preliminary legal questions in two applications to amend the union’s certification order and a related unfair labour practice application. It did not decide which individual jobs belong in the union, find an unfair labour practice or award compensation. All three applications were adjourned without a new hearing date.

A negotiated process for new jobs

IBEW Local 2067 represents SaskPower tradespeople and nearly all its outdoor workers, along with some employees in desk jobs. Unifor Local 649 represents a separate group broadly comprising administrative, clerical and call-centre employees.

The parties’ framework grew out of a 2013 settlement and board orders, followed by changes incorporated into the collective agreement in 2015. It permits SaskPower to assign new union-covered work to the bargaining unit it considers appropriate and to create and immediately fill new management positions outside the units. Challenges must be advanced within 30 days after all parties are notified of a new position’s creation.

For this preliminary hearing, the parties agreed that SaskPower had not specifically notified IBEW of a new out-of-scope position since 2017. Employees and union representatives could access internal job information and organizational charts, and most new positions appeared on an internal careers site. Whether that access amounted to the required notice was central to the dispute.

Earlier bargaining changes, but does not erase, the duty

The board applied what is known as the Battlefords principle. Ordinarily, in an all-employee bargaining unit, a new position is presumed to fall within the unit. An employer seeking an exclusion must notify and bargain with the union and, if agreement is not reached, seek a board decision.

That is a default process, not one the parties are forbidden to change. Here, their negotiated agreement expressly allowed SaskPower to make the initial assignment and put responsibility on the unions to challenge it. The board treated the later collective-agreement wording as the operative framework.

The prior bargain therefore reduced what had to be negotiated afresh. If notice produces no dispute, further bargaining is unnecessary. If a dispute arises, SaskPower and IBEW must try in good faith to resolve it; failing agreement, IBEW must bring it to the board within the agreed process. The board also rejected IBEW’s proposed distinction between managerial exclusions and exclusions for confidential labour-relations work: the language established a comprehensive approach.

Responsibility for starting a challenge was not the same as responsibility for proving the case. The agreement set a deadline but did not shift the evidentiary burden. On a timely challenge, SaskPower must establish that the exclusion is justified.

Actual notice, with individual defences left open

The board rejected SaskPower’s position that the notice requirement could simply be satisfied by what the union knew or ought to have discovered. Notice was part of the duty to bargain: the union needed to know a new position had been created before it could identify a dispute and act within the deadline. The parties had changed other parts of the process, but had not replaced actual notice with constructive notice.

No elaborate form of notice was imposed. Because most positions are posted, the board said advising IBEW that a posting exists would usually be enough to notify it of a new position.

There is an important qualification. The decision did not prevent SaskPower from arguing, on the facts of particular jobs, that the union’s knowledge and failure to act should bar a late challenge. The board expressly left constructive-notice and estoppel defences open. It distinguished interpreting the notice clause from deciding the consequences of an alleged breach.

Either party may seek to return the applications for scheduling on seven days’ notice. The ruling establishes the framework for those disputes; it does not settle every contested job’s status.