Board Approves Expansion of Bargaining Unit to Include Kelowna Workers
📌 In brief
The Canada Industrial Relations Board allowed the expansion of a bargaining unit to include workers in Kelowna, BC. This decision came after a settlement agreement was reached between the union and the employers.
⚖️ Legal holding
A settlement agreement can resolve disputes over the inclusion of workers in a bargaining unit.
📖 Technical summary
The Board granted the application to expand the bargaining unit to include workers in Kelowna.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Canada Industrial Relations Board granted an application to expand a bargaining unit to include workers in Kelowna, BC, after reaching a settlement agreement with the employers.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Order No.: 12184-U Supersedes: 11782-U IN THE MATTER OF THE Canada Labour Code - and - [NAME], applicant, - and - [COMPANY].; [COMPANY].; [COMPANY].; [COMPANY]., Surrey, British Columbia, employers. WHEREAS the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the Board), by order no. 11782-U dated December 19, 2022, certified the [NAME] as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of [COMPANY]., [COMPANY]., [COMPANY]. and [COMPANY]. (the employers) comprising: all drivers, owner-operators, drivers of owner-operators and warehouse workers of [COMPANY]., [COMPANY]., [COMPANY]. and [COMPANY]. performing in-town, city work at and from 11398 [ADDRESS], Surrey, British Columbia; at and from [ADDRESS], Kamloops, British Columbia; at and from [ADDRESS], Prince George, British Columbia; and at and from 4184 Business Fronting North, Smithers, British Columbia, excluding highway drivers, office staff, dispatchers, salespersons, supervisors and those above the rank of supervisor. AND WHEREAS the Board received an application from the applicant, pursuant to section 18 of the Canada Labour Code , seeking to amend the said order to include workers working at and from the employers’ location in Kelowna, British Columbia; AND WHEREAS the employer does not oppose the proposed amendment but disputes the eligibility of certain individuals to be included in the bargaining unit; AND WHEREAS the parties reached a Settlement Agreement that resolves the status of all disputed individuals; AND WHEREAS the parties request that a confidentiality order cover the said Settlement Agreement filed with the Board; AND WHEREAS the Board determined that a confidentiality order covering the Settlement Agreement in this matter is appropriate and issued order no. 1792-NB; AND WHEREAS the Board is satisfied that the amended bargaining unit is appropriate for collective bargaining and that a majority of the employees to be added to the bargaining unit wishes to be represented by the applicant; AND WHEREAS , following investigation of the application and consideration of the submissions of the parties concerned and the Settlement Agreement, the Board determined that it is appropriate to grant the application. NOW, THEREFORE, the Canada Industrial Relations Board hereby declares that the [NAME] is the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit comprising: all drivers, owner-operators, drivers of owner-operators and warehouse workers of [COMPANY]., [COMPANY]., [COMPANY]. and [COMPANY]., performing in-town, city work at and from 11398 [ADDRESS], Surrey; [ADDRESS], Kamloops; [ADDRESS], Prince George; 4184 Business Fronting North, Smithers; and [ADDRESS], Kelowna, in British Columbia, excluding highway drivers, office staff, dispatchers, salespersons, supervisors and those above the rank of supervisor. ISSUED at Ottawa, this 14th day of May, 2026, by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. [NAME]-Chairperson Reference: File No. 038872-C
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Settlement Agreement resolved the status of all disputed individuals.
- The employers did not oppose the proposed amendment to include workers in Kelowna.
- A majority of the employees to be added to the bargaining unit wished to be represented by the applicant.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- There are no arguments identified as rejected by the court in this decision.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision expanded the bargaining unit to include workers in Kelowna, BC.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether workers in Kelowna should be included in the bargaining unit.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to expand the bargaining unit, as a settlement agreement resolved the disputes over the inclusion of these workers.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The settlement agreement between the union and the employers resolved the disputes over the inclusion of workers in Kelowna.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing the expansion of the bargaining unit.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also seek to expand their bargaining unit through a settlement agreement with the employers.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.