A Saskatchewan health worker’s complaint about her union’s handling of workplace-safety concerns cleared a preliminary hurdle after the Labour Relations Board rejected an argument that its representation duty was not engaged because she had not been disciplined.
In Bakken v HSAS, 2026 SKLRB 57, issued October 23, 2026, chairperson Kyle McCreary dismissed the Health Sciences Association of Saskatchewan’s application for summary dismissal. He found that Tricia Bakken had an arguable case and called for replies from the union and the Saskatchewan Health Authority. The ruling did not find that either respondent had committed wrongdoing or award compensation.
A complaint at the screening stage
Bakken alleged that the union had failed to represent her adequately over an office ventilation concern and an investigatory meeting with her employer. Her account included complaints that the union had not followed up on concerns and had not adequately assisted her at the meeting. Those were allegations being screened, not facts established after a merits hearing.
The union and the employer argued that the application disclosed no arguable case. The union also challenged the Board’s jurisdiction over parts of the complaint. Bakken amended her application twice with their consent, and the Board considered its initial screening review together with the union’s separate dismissal application.
The distinction mattered because the Board had to read the pleaded facts generously and assume they were true for the dismissal analysis. It could reject the case at that stage only if it was plain and obvious that no arguable case existed. Allowing the complaint to proceed therefore did not resolve the underlying dispute.
McCreary found it arguable that the union had acted arbitrarily by failing to investigate and give a considered response to Bakken’s occupational health and safety concerns. It was also arguable that the union had not considered whether the employer’s subsequent actions were retaliation for raising those concerns. Neither possibility was a final finding against the union or employer.
Safety concerns and the union’s duty
The union argued that occupational health and safety matters were outside both the Board’s jurisdiction at first instance and the union’s collective bargaining responsibilities. McCreary accepted the first proposition but rejected the argument that the second clearly defeated the complaint. Earlier Board decisions treated workplace-safety obligations as arguably implied terms of collective agreements.
That left a distinction between deciding a workplace-safety dispute directly and examining how a union represented a worker over rights under a collective agreement. The Board was considering the latter. It was not plain and obvious that the union owed no representation duty concerning the issues Bakken raised.
McCreary also rejected the union’s argument that the duty was not engaged because no discipline had been imposed and no critical job interests had been affected. Section 6-59 of The Saskatchewan Employment Act extends fair representation to rights under the collective agreement, he explained, rather than only critical job interests. The duty may be less onerous when non-critical interests are at stake, but it is still owed.
Limits on relief and the next step
The Board nevertheless identified a limit on the relief Bakken sought: moving her desk was likely beyond its jurisdiction. The main relief concerned how she was represented, however, and the Board could not say that relief on that issue was plainly outside its broad remedial jurisdiction. It made no order to move the desk.
Bakken had also questioned why the respondents had not filed replies to her representation complaint. McCreary explained that, under the applicable screening procedure, replies were required only after the preliminary review was completed. The union’s dismissal application had delayed that review, but neither respondent had been required to file a reply before it ended.
The October 23 decision directed that replies be sought and said the Registrar or a Board Officer would contact the parties to set filing timelines. It did not specify those dates or decide the complaint’s merits. The screening rules quoted in the reasons leave further steps open after replies, including dismissal, more written submissions, a pre-hearing conference or referral to a hearing.
Source: Bakken v HSAS, 2026 SKLRB 57.
