Certification of Bargaining Unit Excluding Managerial Positions
📌 In brief
The Canada Industrial Relations Board certified a bargaining unit for a group of workers, excluding certain managerial positions, without making a final decision on the status of those excluded roles.
⚖️ Legal holding
A board may certify a bargaining unit without resolving the status of all included positions.
📖 Technical summary
The Board certified a bargaining unit excluding certain managerial positions.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Board certified a bargaining unit for a group of employees, excluding certain managerial positions, without determining the status of those excluded roles.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Order No.: 12201-U IN THE MATTER OF THE Canada Labour Code - and - [NAME], applicant, - and - Comox Valley Airport Commission, Comox, British Columbia, employer. WHEREAS the [NAME] (the Board) has received an application for certification pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canada Labour Code (the Code ) from the applicant seeking certification as bargaining agent for a [NAME] of employees of Comox Valley Airport Commission (the employer) comprising: all employees of Comox Valley Airport Commission, Comox, British Columbia, excluding the Operations Manager, Facilities Manager, Accounting and Administration Manager, Marketing and Communications Manager, Technology and Plans Manager, Deputy Operations Manager, Operations Lead Hand, FueI/Maintenance Lead Hand, and the Administrative Assistant. AND WHEREAS the employer submitted, in its response, that the bargaining [NAME] should include the positions of operations lead hand and fuel/maintenance lead hand on the basis that they are “employees” within the meaning of the Code , as they do not perform managerial functions and are not employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to industrial relations. Specifically, the employer argued that, although the incumbents of the two lead hand positions exercise some supervisory tasks, they have no authority to manage performance, promote, discipline or fire employees, and no independent authority to hire employees; AND WHEREAS the employer also submitted that the lead hands share a community of interests with the employees in the proposed bargaining [NAME] as they share the same working conditions, general shift schedules and oversight from the manager. The employer referred to the Board’s general preference for larger bargaining units; AND WHEREAS the applicant, in reply, submitted that the Board does not have to find the “most” appropriate bargaining [NAME], but only an appropriate [NAME] in the context of a first certification application. The applicant argued that the status of the lead hands is highly ambiguous, but that it is not necessary to determine it for the purpose of disposing of its application; AND WHEREAS , following investigation of the application and consideration of the submissions of the parties concerned, the Board has found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Code , and has determined the [NAME] described hereunder to be appropriate for collective bargaining; AND WHEREAS , in response to the employer’s argument that a broader bargaining [NAME] would be preferable and that the inclusion of the lead hands in the bargaining would create the most cohesive [NAME], the Board emphasizes that it is not seeking to certify the most appropriate bargaining [NAME] in the case of a first certification application (see [COMPANY] , 2002 CIRB 161, at paragraph 49). The Board is satisfied, for the purposes of promoting access to collective representation pursuant to the Code ’s objectives, that the [NAME] proposed by the applicant is appropriate for collective bargaining; AND WHEREAS, given this determination, the Board does not find it necessary to determine the status of the incumbents in the lead hand positions for the purposes of determining the present application; AND WHEREAS the Board also rejects the employer’s submissions that the exclusion of the lead hand positions would have the effect of denying them access to collective bargaining as the union expressly did not seek their inclusions and it will remain open to either party to file an application for review pursuant to section 18 of the Code to seek their inclusion in the future. In such case, their status under the Code can be determined at that time; AND WHEREAS , the Board has found that none of the considerations raised by the employer would impede the parties’ ability to negotiate terms and conditions of employment for the employees in the proposed bargaining [NAME]; AND WHEREAS , the Board is satisfied that a majority of the employees of the employer in the [NAME] wish to have the applicant trade union represent them as their bargaining agent. NOW, THEREFORE , it is ordered by the [NAME] that the [NAME] be, and it is hereby certified to be, the bargaining agent for a [NAME] comprising: all employees of Comox Valley Airport Commission, Comox, British Columbia, excluding the operations manager, facilities manager, accounting and administration manager, marketing and communications manager, technology and plans manager, deputy operations manager, operations lead hand, fueI/maintenance lead hand, and the administrative assistant. ISSUED at Ottawa, this 15th day of July, 2026, by the [NAME]. [NAME]: File No. 039996-C
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Code.
- The Board determined the proposed bargaining unit to be appropriate for collective bargaining.
- The Board emphasized that it is sufficient to certify an appropriate bargaining unit in the context of a first certification application.
- The Board concluded that a majority of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit wished to be represented by the applicant trade union.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The employer argued that the positions of operations lead hand and fuel/maintenance lead hand should be included in the bargaining unit.
- The employer claimed that the lead hands share a community of interests with the employees in the proposed bargaining unit.
- The employer suggested that a broader bargaining unit would be more cohesive and preferable.
- The employer asserted that excluding the lead hand positions would deny them access to collective bargaining.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Board certified a bargaining unit for a group of employees, excluding certain managerial positions.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over whether certain lead hand positions should be included in the bargaining unit.
How did the court decide, and why?
The Board decided to certify the bargaining unit as requested, emphasizing that it was not required to determine the status of all positions for the initial certification.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Canada Labour Code was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The employer argued that the lead hands should be included in the bargaining unit, but the Board emphasized the need for a more inclusive unit for collective bargaining.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to have a bargaining unit certified without resolving the status of all included positions.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify
