Distillery sale brought pay and benefits changes, but the labour board called the breaches minor
Pay frequency and benefits provider changes don't trigger constructive dismissal, Chairperson Kyle McCreary ruled May 14 at Saskatchewan's labour board.
Donald Meek had worked at Sperling Silver Distilleries Ltd. in Saskatchewan since September 2022. His last shift was June 14, 2025. Two days later, a company called Brandt took over the business, soon to operate as Queen City Distillery.
On June 19, 2025, Meek received a Brandt job offer with different terms: his pay frequency would shift from semi-monthly to bi-weekly, and his benefits would move to a new carrier. The next day, Meek told Adam Sperling and a co-worker he was not accepting the offer, not quitting, and not coming in on June 21. Reminded he was on the schedule, he did not show up.
Sperling treated the no-show as a resignation. The Director of Employment Standards disagreed and issued a wage assessment in Meek's favour for $473.17. An adjudicator upheld it on December 29, 2025, finding Meek resigned on June 21 by missing his shift but had already been constructively dismissed on June 19 when the Brandt offer landed. Sperling, represented by Samuel Schonhoffer, appealed to the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board.
The two-step test the adjudicator missed
The Board found the adjudicator committed an error of law by failing to identify the correct test for constructive dismissal. Under the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, the test has two steps: first, whether the employer made a unilateral change amounting to a breach, and second, whether a reasonable person in the employee's shoes would view that breach as substantially changing an essential term. The Court also stressed constructive dismissal is fact-driven, with outcomes turning on the specifics.
The adjudicator's reasons flagged two changes, the benefits provider and the pay frequency, then jumped to a constructive dismissal finding without analyzing whether those changes touched essential terms or amounted to minor breaches.
On the benefits provider, the evidence summary itself said there was no change of benefits entitlements. The carrier's identity had changed; what employees actually received had not. As McCreary put it: "Even assuming that changing the identity of a benefits provider is a breach, without a change in the benefits received, the breach is not objectively essential, it is a minor breach."
Resignation, not dismissal
On pay frequency, the Board was no more persuaded. The shift was from 24 pay periods a year to 26, with no evidence of any change in overall compensation. On these specific facts, that too was a minor change that did not justify Meek walking away from his contract.
The Director offered a second route: that Meek's employment had been transferred from Sperling to Brandt. The Board agreed a transfer finding would have supported termination or constructive dismissal, but the adjudicator made none, leaving only the contractual-change theory the Board had rejected. Sperling's only act after the offer was reminding Meek of his June 21 shift, not a clear unequivocal act of termination. Adam Sperling also testified to a phone call telling Meek he could keep working at Sperling, evidence the adjudicator appears to have rejected without explanation.
The Board allowed the appeal and cancelled the adjudicator's decision, substituting its own finding that the wage assessment could not be supported. McCreary wrote: "Sperling and Mr. Meek should have communicated better so it was clear that Mr. Meek did not have to accept Brandt's offer and could continue working for Sperling."
See Sperling v Director of Employment Standards, 2026 SKLRB 26
