The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board allowed CUPE Local 882 to call five employees and cross-examine a city witness in an August ruling on evidence for disputed positions at the City of Prince Albert.
In Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 882 v. The City of Prince Albert, 2026 SKLRB 49, dated August 27, 2026, the board found that conflicting affidavits and gaps in the evidence prevented it from resolving the remaining bargaining-unit questions on the written record alone.
The ruling distinguishes an initial direction to use a written hearing from the later decision whether the material filed is sufficient for a fair result. It did not decide the proper bargaining-unit placement of the five jobs.
Five positions remained after a vote
The dispute developed from an effort by the Prince Albert Management Association to represent city employees. Its original certification application was found to concern positions already covered by CUPE’s certification orders and therefore had to be pursued through the statutory process for changing union representation.
CUPE applied in August 2025 to amend its bargaining units to include many of the positions the association had sought. The association filed its new application the following month, and the board directed a representation vote.
In June 2026, the parties agreed to count the ballots. The vote favoured the management association. A consent order provided interim certification for most of its proposed unit, leaving five positions contested.
CUPE then sought permission to subpoena the five incumbents and cross-examine the employer’s affidavit witness, Kiley Bear. The city and the management association opposed those requests.
Fairness and an adequate record are separate questions
The board explained that it generally has only pleadings when it first directs a matter to a written hearing. It cannot decide whether the resulting record will be adequate before that evidence has actually been filed.
The governing inquiry is not simply whether there is a genuine issue for trial under civil summary-judgment rules. The board must consider procedural fairness and whether it has the information needed to decide the dispute.
CUPE did not establish that fairness itself required the five additional witnesses. It had notice and an opportunity to answer the case, but had not sufficiently explained its lack of access to job descriptions or shown efforts to obtain evidence from the people in the disputed positions.
Even so, the board allowed those witnesses because the evidence was inadequate. It had no direct evidence from an incumbent, no detailed indirect account from supervisors or colleagues, and no position descriptions for the contested jobs. Better evidence of actual duties and responsibilities was needed.
Cross-examination rested on a different ground. CUPE’s affidavits and the employer’s affidavit materially conflicted about the work, particularly the extent of supervisory or management responsibility. The documents could not resolve those conflicts, making cross-examination necessary for procedural fairness.
CUPE must examine the witnesses it calls
The board rejected CUPE’s request to make the employer conduct the direct examination of the subpoenaed employees. Ordinarily, the party calling a witness must question that person first; the board saw no compelling labour-relations reason to depart from that approach or declare the witnesses hostile in advance.
The unanimous ruling permitted the five subpoenas and cross-examination of Bear, but required CUPE to present its own evidence before cross-examining the employer’s witness.
