Instabox fails to establish essential services in Manitoba packaging dispute

Instabox Winnipeg and Smartbox Packaging failed to establish that their cardboard-box operations required essential services during a strike or lockout, after Manitoba's labour board rejected requests for more time to investigate possible risks to customers.

In its October 9, 2026 Order No. 1778, case 243/26/LRA, involving UFCW Local 832 and Instabox Winnipeg Ltd. and Smartbox Packaging Inc., the Manitoba Labour Board ruled that no essential-services agreement was required on the evidence presented.

The decision did not establish that a supplier to an essential-service provider can never itself perform essential work. The board expressly left that broader question unresolved because the evidence did not establish a concrete threat in this workplace.

Possibility was not enough

The companies manufacture cardboard boxes and other packaging, including custom products. Their customers included public bodies and businesses in sectors such as electricity, pharmaceuticals and medical supplies.

The union sought a determination that no services needed to continue during lawful job action. The employer did not positively establish that any production was essential. Instead, it asked for more time to examine customers, products, inventory, possible replacement suppliers and the consequences of an interruption.

The employer produced six sample customer orders. Its president explained that artificial intelligence had assisted an initial customer-account screening, but acknowledged that this did not establish whether particular products were essential. He did not know precisely how customers used the boxes and had not contacted them to obtain that information.

The board found that identifying potentially important customers did not prove that stopping production would threaten Manitoba residents' health, safety or welfare. A suggestion that packaging supplied to provincial fire operations might prevent environmental damage remained unsupported by specifics. One medical customer was an American company, while the statutory inquiry concerned threats in Manitoba.

The employer criticized the union for not investigating customer needs. The board rejected that approach: the union did not have access to the employer's private customer contracts, while the employer had not made inquiries about information available to it.

Preparation could not wait for the hearing

Manitoba's essential-services provisions require parties to consider the issue before their collective agreement expires. After an application reaches the board, the legislation sets a 30-day deadline for a determination.

Instabox and Smartbox had separately agreed with the union in 2025 that they did not provide essential services. After a common-employer declaration, the parties could not agree on a new filing. The union's negotiator acknowledged mistakenly believing earlier determinations simply carried forward to the next bargaining round.

The board emphasized that both sides were expected to assess essential services in advance. Their failure to do that work did not entitle either to extra time once an application was filed.

The employer's extension requests ranged from seven days to an unspecified period for a detailed assessment. The board held that being unprepared was not an exceptional circumstance and that it could not extend the statutory process to let the employer perform work it should already have done. A provision preserving the validity of a late decision was not permission to disregard the deadline.

Delaying the determination could postpone job action and diminish the economic pressure of a lawful strike, the board reasoned. Essential-services protection had to be balanced against workers' constitutionally protected right to strike, rather than used to preserve normal business operations.

A ruling tied to the evidence

The board did not decide the case by default. It refused the union's request for a default ruling and heard the evidence and arguments. It also allowed the parties further submissions after its October 1 Dynacare essential-services decision became available.

Ultimately, the employer did not show that its operations had materially changed from the earlier determinations or identify a real, tangible threat beyond speculation. Questions about whether competitors could provide replacement boxes would become relevant after essential work had first been established.

The result was a finding that UFCW bargaining-unit members performed no essential services within section 94.3 on this record. It was not a general exemption for packaging businesses, or a ruling on every other legal requirement for a strike or lockout.