SAHO met with CUPE, SEIU-West, and SEIU (the “Health Provider Unions” or “HPUs”) for a total of 29 days in April, May and June 2026. SAHO was hopeful that these sessions could focus on common table negotiations, however, the HPUs each have individual table issues that remain unresolved. This resulted in some of the unions using significant portions of time in individual union caucuses rather than negotiations. 

 Economic Increase Proposal

 During the April session, SAHO tabled an economic increase proposal for a five-year term as follows:

 April 1, 2023 – 3%                                                   April 1, 2026 – 2%

April 1, 2024 – 3%                                                   April 1, 2027 – 2%

April 1, 2025 – 2%

 This economic wage proposal has an approximate cost of $186.2M and is in alignment with the provincial mandate for public sector employers. 

 Based on SAHO’s proposed wage increases retroactive to March 31, 2023, and up to March 31, 2026, retroactive lump-sum payments for Full-Time employees would be approximately:

Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN):               $13,056.00

Continuing Care Assistant (CCA):            $8,375.00

Food Service Worker (FSW):                     $7,040.00

Environmental Services Work (ESW):     $6,824.00

In contrast, the HPUs’ economic wage proposal has an approximate cost of over $500M (half a billion dollars) before even accounting for numerous other HPUs monetary proposals which have not been costed or factored in.

SAHO indicated that any increase to SAHO’s monetary offer would have to be linked to purposefully and meaningfully addressing the Employers’ key priorities, including the movement of employees and work, portability of benefits & seniority, and contracting in.

 Movement of Employees & Work - Challenges of the HPUs Historical Territorial Boundaries

 In the later sessions, the HPUs began to engage in discussions regarding the movement of employees and work. These discussions further demonstrated that SAHO proposals do not permit the employers to involuntarily move any employee, at any time, to anywhere in the province. Rather, SAHO’s proposals reduce unnecessary barriers to delivering effective patient care and, in many instances, will maintain or reduce the current distances employees are required to travel. They also ensure fair and equal treatment of healthcare employees across their respective unions. 

 The need for the flexibility these proposals would provide is demonstrated by the HPUs’ own concerns about workload, working short, unfilled shifts, and unfilled vacancies, particularly for part-time positions in rural Saskatchewan. The below examples highlight how the HPUs’ historical territorial boundaries negatively impact patient care and unnecessarily restrict the ability of the employer to address workload issues.

            a. Example #1: 

Orange = SEIU-West Territory

Green = CUPE Territory

Coronach to Fife Lake – 20 kms

Rockglen to Fife Lake – 19 kms

 Home Care services are provided by both Rockglen (SEIU-West) and Coronach (CUPE), which are approximately 35 kms apart but fall within two different union territories as noted. 

In a provincial healthcare system, patients located between these communities should be able to freely receive Home Care services from either Rockglen or Coronach based on whichever location is best able to provide it when it is needed. However, this is currently not possible due to the HPUs maintaining rigid, historical territorial boundaries established prior to the creation of the Saskatchewan Health Authority (“SHA”) as the sole provincial health authority. For example, when emergent circumstances like sick leave or other unexpected absences from work in the Rockglen (SIEU-West territory) occur, a patient in Fife Lake cannot receive care from another equally qualified health care provider employed by the SHA in Coronach (CUPE territory), even if the latter has the capacity to provide that care. The SHA/CUPE employees in Coronach are prevented from doing so because of SEIU-West’s historical territorial boundaries.

 b. Example #2:

Orange = SEIU-West Territory

Green = CUPE Territory

Blue = SGEU Territory

 Foam Lake to Wadena – 43 KM

Wynyard to Wadena – 48 KM

Kelvington to Wadena – 44 KM

The Employer wants to establish an immunization clinic to provide service to patients in the Wynyard (SEIU-West), Kelvington (SGEU), and Foam Lake (CUPE) area. There are LPNs from Wynyard, Foam Lake and Kelvington communities that all work with 50 kms of one another, but they are prohibited from working collaboratively to provide a single clinic serving patients from across all of those communities. Rather than being able to rely on all nearby SHA Employees to staff such a clinic, which would allow for greater availability and shorter wait times for patients as well as more support and relief for workers, the Employers are restricted to staffing the clinic solely with SHA Employees based in whichever HPU’s historical territory the clinic is situated.

 c. General Themes Highlighted in the Above Examples

 SAHO’s proposals seek to ensure that when the people of Saskatchewan need healthcare, it is delivered based on which employees can provide that care most efficiently, using all available resources at the time, and without being unduly restricted by the HPUs’ historical territorial boundaries.

 The HPUs’ historical territorial boundaries and related restrictions not only negatively impact the employers’ ability to provide patient care, but it also unnecessarily prevents employees who wish to pick up hours in neighbouring communities from doing so if those communities are in different HPUs’ historical territorial boundaries. In turn, this creates a critical obstacle to finding solutions for temporary or emergent workload issues in situations where SHA employees may have capacity and interest to pick up additional hours but cannot do so unless the HPUs are willing to negotiate new collective agreement language. . Staffing in rural areas is already a challenge, and these HPU historical territorial boundaries and related restrictions add another layer of complexity. 

 SAHO’s proposals do not interfere with the jurisdictions of the HPUs. Rather, they enhance the rights and opportunities of their members while also providing the employer with greater agility to meet organizational needs and deliver safe, timely patient care, which is ultimately the goal of the provincial healthcare system.

 In its discussions with the HPUs, SAHO highlighted the employers’ key consideration in constructing these proposals as follows:

• Minimizing travel and maximizing client facing time and/or patient care;
• Compensation for travel time, transportation, parking costs; and
• Transparency, including: 
1. Communication with HPUs to ensure they are aware of work areas that will overlap union territories; and
2. Information provided on postings to ensure applicants are aware of any possible requirements for travel.

 Portability of Seniority

 The parties continued discussions on the issue of portability of seniority. The current seniority language of each union’s collective agreement provides that if an LPN working in SEIU-West’s territory (e.g. former Five Hills) wishes to move to take a position in CUPE’s territory (e.g. former Sun Country) or SGEU’s territory (or vice versa), whether for personal or professional reasons, they would lose all the seniority they had accrued.

 Over the course of these discussions, SGEU and SEIU-West have indicated interest in portability of seniority for employees seeking opportunities outside of their own HPU’s territory. However, CUPE has indicated they have no interest in negotiating collective agreement language to allow employees to port their seniority if they move to a position in a new HPU territory. 

 SAHO believes that the ability for employees to voluntarily move across HPU territories is an issue of equity and fairness for employees. It is about ensuring the membership of all the HPUs have the right to choose to live and work freely throughout the province without sacrificing any of the benefits and recognition earned through their prior years of service.

 Contracting In, Multi-Facility, and Multi-Agency

 SAHO has also tabled proposals that would limit contracting in (hiring non-HPU members to perform bargaining unit work alongside existing employees) to situations where the employers are actively recruiting for a vacant position but have been unable to do so. The employers would strongly prefer to fill any such temporary vacancies with existing employees rather than contract employees. However, to do so they require the flexibility to have members of one HPU be permitted to provide such support to the members of another HPU, regardless of the Unions’ historical territorial boundaries. These proposals would not result in the loss of jobs to any employees or require employees to train contractors to take their jobs. 

 The next bargaining dates are scheduled for July 6 - 10, 2026 in Saskatoon. SAHO is committed to solution-based, productive discussions to draw these negotiations to a conclusion.

Union/CUPE,Union/SEIU-West,Union/SGEU July 07, 2026