Work, Rights, and Respect: A Look Back at Saskatchewan Labour

In Saskatchewan’s early labour history, asking for fair pay or safer conditions could mean arrest  – or worse. Without legal protections, workers had only each other.

Three exemplary events have had a defining impact on Saskatchewan’s labour history: the 1931 Estevan strike, the 1944 Trade Union Act, and a 2015 Supreme Court ruling. Each of these helped give Saskatchewan workers the protections they now benefit from, but, as Andrew Stevens, associate professor at the University of Regina points out, “The right to strike is meaningless if you don’t use it.” If we forget where we came from and what was fought for, we are at risk of freely giving up every hard-won right. 

The spark before the law: the 1931 Estevan coal miners’ strike and riot
In early September 1931, a group of coal miners in Bienfait, Saskatchewan stopped work. Their demands were straightforward: better wages, safer working conditions, and improved workplace safety. Miners were underpaid, worked in dangerous conditions, and faced employer and local resistance municipal law makers and law enforcement.

The workers were supported by the Mine Workers’ Union of Canada, which was affiliated with the Workers’ Unity League, an effective agitation organization founded in 1929 and heavily involved in most Canadian strikes between 1930 and 1935. As the strike continued toward the end of the month, tensions rose in the area, especially between the strikers and mine operators, who were losing patience.

On September 29, 1931, around 300 to 400 miners, along with their wives and children, travelled from Bienfait to Estevan to hold a peaceful march. They aimed to raise awareness and gain support. Instead, they were met with fiercely armed police, who had been called in after the town council had voted that morning to declare the parade illegal. As the march moved through Estevan, the RCMP opened fire. Three miners – Nick Nargan, Peter Markunas, and Julian Gryshko – were killed, and several others were injured or arrested. The following day, 90 RCMP officers stormed Bienfait and raided the miners’ homes, arresting 13 strikers and the union leader.

If we forget where we came from and what was fought for, we are at risk of freely giving up every hard-won right. 

The event became known as the Estevan Riot despite the fact that the violence was one-sided, the miners armed only with banners. The RCMP’s use of lethal force shocked many, though public opinion was divided. While some newspapers and politicians blamed the violence on so-called “outside communist agitators,” others criticized the excessive police force and the working conditions that led to the strike.

While the RCMP officers involved were not charged in the incident, the mine owners did agree to concessions. On October 6, miners won an eight-hour work day, a minimum wage of $4 a day, a reduction in rent for miners’ houses, and an end to the company store monopoly. The owners, however, refused to acknowledge the union until the Second World War. The riot was instrumental in the movement for labour protections in Saskatchewan. It showed how peaceful demands could be seen as threats – and how vulnerable workers were. When Saskatchewan became the first province to legally recognize union rights in 1944, the hard-fought rights won in Estevan were part of that success.

The legal turning point: the 1944 Trade Union Act
Just over a decade after the violent suppression of the Estevan coal miners’ strike, Saskatchewan made history – this time not with force, but with legislation. In 1944, under then-Premier Tommy Douglas and his Co-operative Commonwealth Federation government, the province introduced the Trade Union Act, a groundbreaking law that would help shape labour rights in Canada.

Before the Act, workers who tried to unionize often faced job loss or blacklisting, with no clear process to resolve disputes. Saskatchewan’s Trade Union Act changed that. It was Canada’s first to protect bargaining, affirm union rights, and limit employer interference.

The Act spurred union membership, strengthened bargaining, and offered a path to resolve conflict through legal channels. Other provinces followed, and the model shaped federal law.

The law was not without critics, particularly business groups who saw it as giving too much power to unions. But for many workers, it marked the first time they had real protection and a seat at the table. It helped stabilize labour relations and prevent violent confrontations.

Though subsequently amended, its legacy endures. Core rights such as unionizing, filing grievances, and bargaining stem from this legislation. It marked a turning point – not just for its immediate impact in the 1940s, but the framework it left for future workers. 

A constitutional right: the 2015 Supreme Court ruling on the right to strike
By the early 2000s, Saskatchewan was no longer the national model of labour reform it had once been. In 2008, the newly elected Saskatchewan Party government introduced Bill 5 (the Public Service Essential Services Act) and Bill 6 (the Amendments to the Trade Union Act). The legislation significantly limited the ability of public-sector employees, including teachers and nurses, to go on strike by designating broad categories of work as “essential.”

Critics said the Public Service Essential Services Act gave the employers (in the case of public-sector employees, the provincial government) the power to deem which employees were “essential,” with no adequate process to dispute employer-dictated categorizations. If abused, the Act would allow employers to designate all employees as “essential,” effectively halting any strike action. In response, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL) launched a legal challenge. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a landmark decision: the right to strike was protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In SFL v. Saskatchewan, the court ruled that the government’s legislation violated the freedom of association guaranteed by section 2(d) of the Charter.

If abused, the Act would allow employers to designate all employees as “essential,” effectively halting any strike action.

The ruling made clear that meaningful bargaining includes the right to strike, for all workers. The provincial government had to amend its law, passing new legislation in 2015 that removed the old definition of “essential services” and created an independent tribunal to resolve disputes. It also introduced mediation arbitration if essential services limits made a strike ineffective. These changes were meant to bring the law in line with the Charter, but unions noted concerns about how accessible and effective the new system would be in practice.

Saskatchewan’s labour rights: not thriving
So what has all this struggle been for? What is the state of workers’ rights now? Nearly a decade after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of workers, Stevens acknowledges it was a positive win – but workers in Saskatchewan are not using all the rights available to them.

“Keep in mind that the number of work stoppages had tanked in the decades leading up to the Sask Party’s Bills 5 and 6 in 2008,” says Stevens. “Even in a province that, at the time, possessed some of the most favourable labour legislation in Canada, very little was happening in an otherwise quiet labour relations environment. The right to strike is meaningless if you don’t use it.”

In Saskatchewan, some of the most prominent strikers are teachers, who have “made meaningful gains because of collective action,” says Stevens, referencing the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation (STF) work action that saw teachers working for nearly two years without a contract in place.

He also warns against thinking the 2015 Supreme Court case was a slam dunk win. There are provisions in the labour codes at the “federal and provincial level [that] still allow governments to curb collective action by referring matters to arbitration,” explains Stevens. “Ask port workers, posties, and rail unions what it meant to have federal officials suspend their strike action. This is perfectly legal and constitutional.” 

In Saskatchewan, some of the most prominent strikers are teachers, who have “made meaningful gains because of collective action,” says Stevens, referencing the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation (STF) work action that saw teachers working for nearly two years without a contract in place. “It’s possible that, had STF members not agreed to binding arbitration on the class complexity matter, they might have been able to achieve even more had they maintained a picket line,” speculates Stevens. “It was clear that membership engagement and mobilization was delivering the goods and moving the needle on issues that the government had refused to meaningfully negotiate.”

Stevens is concerned that all of us have forgotten that strikes are meant to be inconvenient. A strike aims to powerfully demonstrate how integral employees are to the success of a business or organization. He points to the case of the Unifor Local 594 members at the Co-op Refinery Complex in Regina in 2020, who were undermined by replacement workers (scabs). “Without laws prohibiting scabs from continuing operations, employers can keep businesses running, rendering a right to strike moot.” 

In that instance, the employer went so far as to demand the imprisonment of union leaders and members who blockaded a back entrance to the plant. The City of Regina was also complicit, greenlighting a scab camp, and local police acted as private security for the business, routinely patrolling the boundaries of the facility. Stevens points to a comment by Scott Banda, CEO of Federated Co-operatives Limited at the time, that sums up some of his deepest concerns. Banda stated that “there’s the right for the union to picket in a peaceful way and there’s the right for the business to operate.” To that, Stevens responds that “strikes are just performative if they can’t confront the power of an employer.”

Stevens is concerned that all of us have forgotten that strikes are meant to be inconvenient. A strike aims to powerfully demonstrate how integral employees are to the success of a business or organization.

“Overall,” Stevens says sadly, “I don’t see much change.” He points to Evraz, a steel and pipe facility with a location in Regina, whose record for serious injuries and fatalities raised safety questions yet drew little labour response. In Moose Jaw, too, hotel workers have been walking the picket line for over 600 days, with no end in sight and little support from the labour movement at large. 

Stevens’ perspective draws a sharp contrast between legal victories and lived realities. While the 2015 decision marked a new chapter in Canadian labour law, its power ultimately depends on how it’s used – and whether workers feel supported enough to exercise it.

The present labour climate in Saskatchewan
Even with the right to strike now constitutionally protected, the realities facing Saskatchewan workers suggest that recognition alone is not enough. How those rights are used – and how governments and employers respond – has become just as important.

Saskatchewan’s labour environment still reflects deep structural challenges. Under the Sask Party, first elected in 2007, the province has introduced policies that make it harder for workers to unionize or take collective action. 

“The Sask Party [has] carried on the conservative tradition by making it more difficult for workers to unionize and for them to engage in strike activity,” says Stevens. “It’s not just about the constitutional right to strike. There are now more obstacles for unions to follow just to be in a legal strike position. That’s all very constitutional. Employers now have more rights when it comes to intervening in a union drive. That was deemed acceptable by Canada’s top court.”

“We’re in a period of relative quiet right now, but let’s think about the hate directed at Unifor 594 workers when they were locked out,” he says. “These were oil and gas workers, but it didn’t stop their union from being cast as some Eastern elite organization, or from self-identified farmers who threatened to bomb the picket lines. That’s where we’re at right now. The all-out assault on union rights has stalled in Saskatchewan, but economic conditions might end up doing the hard work for employers.”

The legal ability to strike may exist, but without accompanying protections – such as anti-scab legislation or meaningful limitations on employer retaliation – many unions face uphill battles when they exercise it.

"There’s not enough talk linking labour issues with other socio-economic challenges like homelessness, growing rates of poverty, addictions, and housing affordability.

Stevens also highlights deeper issues being overlooked, including general working conditions and challenges posed by automation, specifically AI, and a just transition.

“We’re just not talking enough about how climate change and the just transition will impact Saskatchewan workers and their unions,” he says. “There’s not enough talk linking labour issues with other socio-economic challenges like homelessness, growing rates of poverty, addictions, and housing affordability. Nor are we talking enough about organizing new workplaces in under-represented industries.”

He stresses that the province has some wonderful union leaders but wonders about “the labour-focused economic development strategy needed to confront Trump? Where are unions when it comes to right–wing populism and separatism? Efforts to prevent the contracting–out of work? Labour involvement in living wage campaigns?”

His concerns speak to a broader disconnect: while individual unions continue to represent their members in the workplace, the larger social and economic forces shaping workers’ lives – such as automation, climate change, income inequality, and housing instability – often go unaddressed.

Today’s challenges go beyond wages and include who shapes the economy, who feels safe, and whose voices matter. And while the province once paved the way and helped set the standard for labour rights, residents of this province have not collectively stepped up to carry that work forward.

What’s missing, Stevens argues, is a unified labour strategy that responds not just to employer demands, but to the full range of issues workers face. Without that, legal victories like the 2015 ruling risk becoming simply symbolic, a right in theory but never in practice. As Stevens notes, “Collective action gets the goods,” but that can only be true if the collective remains active.

[...] while individual unions continue to represent their members in the workplace, the larger social and economic forces shaping workers’ lives – such as automation, climate change, income inequality, and housing instability – often go unaddressed.

Saskatchewan’s labour journey moved from protest to protection to constitutional rights. The moments of progress in 1931, 1944, and 2015 were significant, but rights can erode without strong support structures. For example, the Supreme Court struck down Saskatchewan’s 2008 Essential Services Act specifically because it lacked impartial review mechanisms and alternative dispute resolution like arbitration, meaning employers could unilaterally dictate who was deemed “essential” and stifle bargaining rights. And although the government later introduced a tribunal and mediation–arbitration system, unions have warned these may not be sufficiently accessible or timely to fully protect workers in practice.

Stevens’ observations that “the right to strike is useless unless you use it” is a warning that underscores the ongoing tension between recognition and reality. Today, workers’ rights face quiet but persistent challenges unless all of us, collectively, defend them. The labour movement’s legacy lies not just in law, but in the will to keep pushing.