Distillery worker refuses to show up for work after new owner changes benefits provider, pay schedule
An employee who refused to accept a new owner's job offer and didn't show up for his next scheduled shift was found to have resigned, not been dismissed, in a Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board decision that wipes out his wage assessment.
In a ruling dated May 14, 2026, chairperson Kyle McCreary overturned an adjudicator's finding of constructive dismissal, holding that a change in benefits provider and a shift in pay frequency from semi-monthly to bi-weekly were not essential breaches of the employment contract.
The board found the employee's no-show was a clear, unequivocal act of resignation, leaving his former employer off the hook for statutory notice pay under Saskatchewan's employment standards regime.
A takeover, an offer, and a missed shift
Donald Meek had worked at Sperling Silver Distilleries since September 2022. On June 16, 2025, Brandt Group took over the business, and the new business was named Queen City Distillery. Three days later, Meek received a job offer from the new owner with different conditions than his existing arrangement.
The next day, Meek and Sperling president and CEO Adam Sperling exchanged texts about not accepting Brandt's offer, not working June 21, and Meek not giving proper notice. He told a coworker the same thing, and the coworker reminded him he was on the schedule.
On June 21, Meek didn't show up for work; Sperling treated the no-show as a resignation.
The director of employment standards issued a wage assessment of $473.17 in Meek's favour, and an adjudicator dismissed Sperling's appeal, finding Meek had been constructively dismissed.
What counts as an essential breach
But the board found the adjudicator never applied the correct two-step test for constructive dismissal set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission. On the benefits change, the only identifiable change was the identity of the benefits provider, with no evidence that the benefits would be different between providers.
On the pay frequency change, the change was from 24 pay periods a year to 26, with no evidence before the adjudicator of a change in overall compensation.
As McCreary wrote: "Viewed objectively, this also appears to be a minor change that is not an essential breach justifying repudiation of the contract by Mr. Meek."
When silence speaks louder than words
The adjudicator found Sperling never advised Meek he could continue to work for Sperling, and Meek never asked Sperling if he could stay on. Sperling testified to a phone call conveying the ability to continue working for Sperling; this evidence appears to have been rejected by the adjudicator without explanation. Still, the board found no overt act by the employer ending the relationship.
The board also expressly declined to find that Meek's employment had been transferred from Sperling to Brandt: “There is... a clear and unequivocal act to support the finding of resignation, that is, Mr. Meek was advised of a scheduled shift and he did not attend work for that shift.”
Sperling and Meek “should have communicated better” so it was clear that Meek did not have to accept Brandt's offer and could continue working for Sperling, said McCreary.
The appeal was allowed and the adjudicator's decision cancelled.
