Claimant's Application to Include ROC Positions in Certification Dismissed

Reasons for decision [NAME], applicant, and [COMPANY]., respondent, and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, intervenor . Board File: 039333-C Neutral Citation: 2026 CIRB 1245 April 30, 2026 A panel of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the Board), composed of [NAME], Chairperson, and [NAME] and [NAME], Members, considered the above-noted application. Counsel of [NAME], for the [NAME]; Mr. [NAME], for [COMPANY].; [NAME] and [NAME], for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. These reasons for decision were written by [NAME], Chairperson .

I. Introduction [ 1 ] After thoroughly considering the evidence and submissions of the parties and the intervenor , the Board issued a bottom-line decision on March 25, 2026 (see [COMPANY]. , 2026 CIRB LD 6034 (LD 6034)), informing the parties of its decision to dismiss the present application for review. [ 2 ] The following are the reasons detailing the Board’s decision that was summarily explained in LD 6034.

II. Nature of the Application [ 3 ] This decision deals with an application filed on November 21, 2025, by the [NAME] ([NAME]) pursuant to section 18 of the Code . In its application, [NAME] seeks an order to clarify that the scope of its [NAME] includes the position of [NAME] coordinator (ROC). [ 4 ] [COMPANY]. ([NAME] or the employer) supports the application. [ 5 ] The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers ([NAME]), which had previously filed a certification application on November 4, 2025, to represent all employees of [NAME] in the position of ROC at the Toronto Pearson International Airport (Pearson Airport) (see Board file no. 039243-C) was granted intervenor status by the Board. [NAME] opposes the application. [ 6 ] As indicated in LD 6034, the Board has determined the present application based on the written submissions, pursuant to its powers under section 16.1 of the Canada Labour Code (the Code ).

III. Factual Background [ 7 ] [NAME] is party to a contract with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) for the provision of pre-boarding security screening services at several Canadian airports, including the Toronto Pearson International Airport and the Toronto City Centre Airport (now the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport). [ 8 ] [NAME] is the certified bargaining agent representing the following group of employees of the employer: all employees of [COMPANY]. providing pre-board security screening services under the CATSA contract at the Pearson International Airport and Toronto City Centre Airport, excluding dispatchers, terminal supervisors and those above the rank of terminal supervisors. (Board order no. 11908-U (Order 11908)) [ 9 ] Order 11908 was issued on March 22, 2024, following a certification application by [NAME] to displace [NAME], which held bargaining rights for essentially the same [NAME] since March 14, 2012, with the exception of the reference to the Buttonville Airport location, which was removed in Order 11908. [ 10 ] There are approximately 3,150 employees included in [NAME]. The collective agreement applicable to that [NAME] is effective from April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2027. [ 11 ] On or about April 1, 2024, the employer created the new position of ROC. Approximately 25 employees occupy the position of ROC at Pearson Airport. There are no [NAME] employed at the Toronto City Centre Airport. [ 12 ] According to the summary of the job description, [NAME] assist in implementing employee daily work schedules, including securing additional resources to fulfill scheduling requirements. They are responsible for completing various administrative tasks, including maintaining accurate records and documentation to support [NAME] management efforts. They assist management by focusing on deployment, movement and break management to ensure the full utilization of resources. [ 13 ] [NAME] are responsible for coordinating screening officers to ensure that they receive their breaks in compliance with the collective agreement. They must ensure that enough screening officers remain available to carry out security screening at all times in accordance with CATSA’s standards. [ 14 ] [NAME] do not perform any security screening of passengers or luggage. Unlike the screening officers, [NAME] are not required to undergo the specialized training to acquire CATSA security screening officer certification. [ 15 ] Since its creation on or about April 1, 2024, the employer has treated [NAME] as non-unionized employees, without objection from [NAME] until November 2025. [ 16 ] It was only after [NAME] filed its certification application (Board file no. 039243-C) that [NAME] took steps to claim bargaining rights in respect of [NAME]. Specifically, on November 17, 2025, [NAME] filed a grievance claiming that the employer had breached the collective agreement by failing to include [NAME] in its [NAME], and, on November 21, 2025, it filed the present application pursuant to section 18 of the Code . [ 17 ] [NAME] and [NAME] are seeking to represent [NAME]. [NAME] filed a fresh application to obtain certification for these employees. By the present application, [NAME] submits that [NAME] fall within the intentional scope of Order 11908.

IV. Positions of the Parties A. [NAME] [ 18 ] [NAME] submits that [NAME] are included in its [NAME], and it requests that the Board review Order 11908 to clarify their inclusion. [ 19 ] [NAME] argues that the certificate is not limited to screening officers or to employees who perform screening services. According to [NAME], its certificate covers all employees who provide services under the CATSA contract. [ 20 ] [NAME] claims that, although [NAME] do not directly screen passengers, they ensure that screening officers are available to do so in accordance with CATSA’s workforce requirements and that the screening officers take the breaks they are entitled to under the collective agreement. [ 21 ] According to [NAME] are a necessary component of the services that the employer provides to CATSA, and, as such, they fall within the scope of Order 11908. [ 22 ] [NAME] indicates that [NAME] work side-by-side with the screening officers at checkpoints and that they are required to maintain the credentials necessary to access the airport’s restricted areas. [ 23 ] [NAME] submits that [NAME] are not listed as an exclusion in Order 11908. [ 24 ] [NAME] also contends that the job duties of [NAME] were previously performed by employees holding the position of [NAME] leader, which was included in its [NAME]. According to [NAME], the position of [NAME] leader performed all the duties performed by [NAME], as well as other tasks. The [NAME] leader position was discontinued shortly after March 2012, when [NAME] was displaced by [NAME]. At that time, the employer created the position of service [NAME] manager (SDM), a managerial position that was excluded, and the [NAME] became responsible for managing the breaks of the screening officers. [ 25 ] [NAME] argues that, since the job duties in question are no longer being performed by managerial employees, they now fall within the scope of its certification. [ 26 ] [NAME] also submits that the fact that it had not taken action to exercise its bargaining rights over [NAME] until November 2025 only shows a brief history of partial abandonment of its bargaining rights that does not bar the present application. [NAME] adds that, in the circumstances, the Board’s preference for larger and more inclusive units should prevail. [ 27 ] Affirming that its application is in the nature of a clarification request, [NAME] submits that it should be determined without a vote. [ 28 ] [NAME] requests that the Board modify its bargaining certificate to read as follows: all employees of [COMPANY]. providing pre-board security screening services under the CATSA contract at the Pearson International Airport and Toronto City Centre Airport, including [NAME] and excluding [NAME] and those above the rank of Service [NAME] Manager. B. [NAME] [ 29 ] The employer submits that [NAME] are already included in [NAME]’s certification. [ 30 ] The employer states that [NAME] are an essential component of pre-board security screening services provided pursuant to its contract with CATSA. [ 31 ] Aligned with the position expressed by [NAME], the employer states that [NAME] are not part of the exclusions listed in Order 11908. [ 32 ] [NAME] adds that the working conditions of [NAME] are comparable to those of the employees included in [NAME] and that they work in close collaboration with these [NAME] employees within the same workplace. C. [NAME] [ 33 ] [NAME] takes the position that [NAME] do not fall within the intended scope of [NAME]. [ 34 ] [NAME] submits that [NAME] is not an “all employees” unit. Rather, it is limited to employees “providing pre-board security screening services.” [ 35 ] [NAME] argues that [NAME] do not provide pre-board security screening services. Moreover, it states that [NAME] cannot perform pre-board security screening services because they do not undergo the necessary training program to obtain the CATSA certification required to perform the duties of a screening officer. [ 36 ] [NAME] notes that the collective agreement between [NAME] and the employer does not include the classification of ROC. It includes a single classification (that of screening officer), which is broken down into different levels. [ 37 ] [NAME] argues that its position is further supported by the employer’s and [NAME]’s own treatment of [NAME] as being outside the [NAME]. Specifically, it refers to the employer’s decision to exclude them from the [NAME] and [NAME]’s lack of any objection in that regard until [NAME] filed a grievance on November 17, 2025, after [NAME] filed its certification application to represent [NAME]. [ 38 ] [NAME] submits that before the introduction of the ROC position, employees performing the same tasks as [NAME] were never included in the [NAME], unless they also performed pre-board security screening services under the CATSA contract (namely, the [NAME]). Hence, in response to [NAME]’s proposed analogy with the [NAME] submits that the [NAME] were not in a separate classification. Rather, they were a subset of screening officers, in the same classification. In other words, [NAME] were screening officers appointed to perform additional coordinating functions but who also performed the regular job duties of screening officers. As such, the [NAME] received the same extensive training as screening officers, and they were certified by CATSA as screening officers. The [NAME] were appointed from the pool of screening officers within the [NAME], and they performed additional coordinating duties in addition to security screening tasks, which is not the case for [NAME]. [ 39 ] [NAME] also points out that, when the ROC position was created, screening officers who applied for and successfully obtained the position were treated as non-unionized employees by [NAME] and, hence, excluded from the [NAME]. [ 40 ] [NAME] argues that [NAME]’s application amounts to an attempted “expansion” of the [NAME] and cannot be properly characterized as a clarification or accretion application. It submits that the work performed by [NAME] is substantially different from the work performed by [NAME] employees. In [NAME]’s view, [NAME] is attempting to circumvent the requirement of demonstrating majority support. [ 41 ] [NAME] requests that the Board find that [NAME] are not included within [NAME]. D. [NAME]’s Response to [NAME]’s Submissions [ 42 ] The employer argues that [NAME] fall within the originally intended scope of Order 11908. [ 43 ] The employer submits that [NAME]’s proposed interpretation of Order 11908 is incompatible with the operational context of [NAME] at the Pearson Airport and Toronto City Centre Airport. Specifically, the employer submits that all its activities at these airports are intrinsically tied to its contract with CATSA and that all the work it performs is oriented toward a single objective, that of ensuring pre-board security in accordance with CATSA’s stringent standards. In the employer’s view, the various classifications form an integrated ecosystem, where each function contributes to the optimal [NAME] of pre-board security screening services. [ 44 ] Given the nature of their duties, the employer argues that [NAME] participate directly in pre-board security. It contends that poor coordination of breaks would create real operational vulnerability and would compromise public health and safety. [ 45 ] The employer also submits that [NAME]’s interpretation would lead to an unjustified fragmentation of bargaining units and isolate small groups of employees who share a strong community of interest. [ 46 ] The employer argues that the task of coordinating breaks has already been performed by employees within the [NAME] in the past and that, consequently, it is difficult to say that this would substantially or radically transform the composition of the [NAME]. [ 47 ] The employer also points out that the application targets only 25 employees out of a total of approximately 3,150 employees. [ 48 ] In respect of its decision to treat [NAME] as non-union employees since the creation of the position in April 2024, the employer responds that it had no reason and no authority to “unilaterally update” Order 11908. The employer explains that it has taken a position in the present proceedings solely because a dispute exists between the two unions. E. [NAME]’s Response to [NAME]’s Submissions [ 49 ] [NAME] submits that Order 11908 is not limited to those employees who “perform” pre-board security screening services under the CATSA contract. In its view, the scope of the [NAME] includes all employees of the employer who “provide” pre-board security screening services under the CATSA contract, which includes more than just the screening of passengers. According to [NAME], this includes the work that permits passengers to be screened. [ 50 ] [NAME] admits that [NAME] do not directly screen passengers, it argues that their role is to ensure that the screening officers take their breaks in a way that does not affect the screening of passengers. [ 51 ] [NAME] disputes [NAME]’s assertion that the [NAME] were placed in a subclassification of screening officers. In its view, the [NAME] had their own separate classification, and they received their own pay rate. [ 52 ] [NAME] also refers to its representation of bilingual facilitators, a position that was created after the parties negotiated their collective agreement, and which is not referenced in the collective agreement. [NAME] states that the bilingual facilitators are included in the [NAME]. [ 53 ] [NAME] reiterates that if [NAME] are excluded from the collective agreement, this simply demonstrates an abandonment of its bargaining rights and that such is not relevant to the question before the Board. [ 54 ] In sum, [NAME] submits that Order 11908 includes not only employees who screen passengers but also all employees who provide related services under the CATSA contract, which includes [NAME].

V. Analysis and Decision A. General Principles [ 55 ] Section 18 of the Code sets out the Board’s general power to review and amend certification orders and to clarify their scope: 18 The Board may review, rescind, amend, alter or vary any order or decision made by it, and may rehear any application before making an order in respect of the application. [ 56 ] The Board has exclusive authority to determine the scope of the bargaining units defined in its certification orders. Consistent with that supervisory role, it is not bound by any agreements made between the parties to vary the unit, whether it be through collective bargaining or otherwise. In fact, it is not open to the parties to negotiate on their own an alteration to the scope of a [NAME] defined by the Board (see, for example, [COMPANY] ., 2000 CIRB 83; and [COMPANY]. , 2023 CIRB 1077). [ 57 ] Two types of review applications come before the Board: clarification applications and expansion applications. [ 58 ] Clarification (or accretion) applications involve positions that are considered to be within the scope of the existing certification order. In such cases, the Board reviews whether the positions in question would substantially alter the original nature and scope of the [NAME]. If they do not, it normally includes these employees in the existing unit. In clarification applications, the Board will only test the union’s ongoing support when the number of employees to be included is such that it raises concerns as to its representative nature. [ 59 ] Expansion applications involve adding positions that fundamentally change the scope of the existing unit. In these applications, the type of work performed by the employees in the positions that are sought to be added is different from the type of work performed by the employees in the positions that are already included. These applications expand the [NAME] to cover employees who were previously unrepresented. Consequently, expansion cases are treated like certification applications, and the [NAME] is required to demonstrate that a majority of the group of employees sought to be added wish to be represented by it, in addition to establishing overall majority status within the newly expanded unit. This is commonly referred to as the “double majority rule” (see 669779 Ontario Limited O/A CSA Transportation , 2018 CIRB 873; [COMPANY] ., 2018 CIRB 879, affirmed [COMPANY] . v. Metro Cable T.V. Maintenance and Service Employees’ Association , 2019 FCA 40; and [COMPANY]. ). B. The Present Application [ 60 ] It is undisputed that [NAME] are “employees” within the meaning of the Code and that they do not perform managerial duties. [ 61 ] Therefore, the issue raised by the present application is whether [NAME] fall within the scope of Order 11908. [ 62 ] [NAME] submits that its application is one of clarification. [ 63 ] [NAME] is very clear that it is not asking for an expansion of its [NAME]. [NAME] is claiming that [NAME] are already included in Order 11908. Consistent with its position, it has not submitted membership evidence to support an expansion application. [ 64 ] In analyzing the issue, the Board will determine whether [NAME]’s application involves a clarification or an expansion of the [NAME]. It will review the intended scope of the original certification order and will compare the nature of the functions of the included positions with the position sought to be added to determine whether the position that [NAME] seeks to add falls within the intended scope. [ 65 ] At the outset, the Board does not accept that Order 11908 is an “all-employee” [NAME] that captures all employees of the employer or all employees who provide related services under the CATSA contract. The [NAME] description in Order 11908 is not a universal one. It is clearly limited to employees who “provide pre-board security screening services” under the CATSA contract at the named airports: all employees of [COMPANY] . providing pre-board security screening services under the CATSA contract at the Pearson International Airport and Toronto City Centre Airport, excluding dispatchers, terminal supervisors and those above the rank of terminal supervisors. (emphasis added) [ 66 ] The Board finds that the employees included in Order 11908 are screening officers certified by CATSA who are directly engaged in performing the screening of passengers and luggage. [ 67 ] [NAME] are not engaged in performing the screening of passengers and luggage. The type of work that they perform is substantially different from the type of work performed by screening officers. [NAME] do not undergo the specialized CATSA training required to provide pre-board security screening services under the CATSA contract, and they are not required to hold the CATSA certification to perform their administrative functions. [ 68 ] The role of [NAME] is to implement the daily work schedules of screening officers and to manage their breaks in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement. According to the job description, they are also responsible for completing other administrative tasks. [ 69 ] The fact that [NAME] and screening officers may work in close physical proximity, that they may have similar working conditions or that [NAME] perform a support role to facilitate the security screening services provided by the screening officers does not assist in determining whether [NAME] fall within the intended scope of Order 11908. These considerations would be relevant in the case of an expansion application to determine whether an expanded [NAME] with [NAME] would be appropriate for collective bargaining. Here, for the purposes of the clarification application, the question is whether [NAME] properly fall within the original scope of Order 11908. [ 70 ] The Board rejects the view that [NAME] would be captured by Order 11908 because they are a “necessary” or “essential” component of pre-board security screening services provided pursuant to the employer’s contract with CATSA. The intended scope of a bargaining certificate is not defined by assessing whether a function is an essential or necessary component of the employer’s business, such as the employer’s contract with CATSA in this case. The scope of this certificate is delineated by the type of work performed by the positions included in the certificate. In the present case, the Board finds that the proposed inclusion of [NAME] would significantly alter the intended scope of the certificate, as Order 11908 covers only the employees who are “providing pre-board security screening services.” [ 71 ] In short, the Board does not agree that [NAME] “provide” pre-board security screening services. They perform administrative tasks related to the coordination of daily work schedules, particularly in respect of the scheduling of breaks by screening officers. They do not “provide” or “perform” pre-board security screening services. [ 72 ] In support of its position, [NAME] claims that the job duties of [NAME] were previously performed by employees holding the position of [NAME] leader, which was included in the [NAME]. In that regard, the Board notes that, when it existed, the “[NAME] leader” position was not a separate classification in the applicable collective agreement effective from April 2021 to March 2024. Rather, it appears to have been a subcategory of the screening offer position that entitled the holders to receive a premium on the wage rate applicable to screening officers. Further, the [NAME] were also certified by CATSA and worked as regular screening officers, performing the screening of passengers and luggage, which is not the case for [NAME]. [ 73 ] That said, this historical background, which reflects the parties’ agreement in respect of [NAME] without the Board’s involvement, does not bind the Board. As indicated, the Board has the sole authority to define the scope of its certification orders. When parties mutually agree to vary a Board-defined [NAME] description, it does not affect the scope of the Board’s certification order. In determining the scope of Order 11908, the Board is guided by the original intent of the certificate, not by how the parties may have mutually agreed to alter it over the years. [ 74 ] The Board also notes that the functions performed by [NAME] appear to have been subsequently assigned to [NAME], a managerial position that was considered excluded from the [NAME] by the parties. It is only now, with the creation of the ROC position, that the functions of coordinating the breaks of screening officers are assigned to a dedicated position. [ 75 ] Similarly, the fact that [NAME] and the employer may have agreed to include a newly created position entitled “bilingual facilitator” in the [NAME], without Board intervention, does not affect the scope of Order 11908. It should also be noted that the “bilingual facilitator” position is not the subject of this application and that the Board expresses no opinion as to whether it is in fact included within the scope of Order 11908. [ 76 ] In its submissions, the employer argues that an interpretation of Order 11908 that would exclude [NAME] would lead to an unjustified fragmentation of the [NAME]. The Board disagrees. The Board’s finding that the scope of Order 11908 does not encompass [NAME] is one of interpretation of the scope of the existing [NAME]. By making this finding, the Board is not fragmenting the existing [NAME] described in Order 11908; it is simply concluding that [NAME] are not included in the scope of Order 11908. [ 77 ] Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that [NAME]’s proposed inclusion of [NAME] in its [NAME] is not a clarification or accretion with respect to Order 11908; it is an expansion. In the absence of a demonstration by [NAME] that there is double majority support, and since [NAME] itself is expressly stating that it is not seeking an expansion, there is no need to assess whether the [NAME] described in Order 11908 should be expanded to add [NAME] to its original scope.

VI. Conclusion [ 78 ] For all the above reasons, the Board dismisses [NAME]’s application for review. [ 79 ] In light of the above conclusions and [NAME]’s demonstration that it has majority support among [NAME] for bargaining representation, the Board has decided to grant [NAME]’s certification application (Board file no. 039243-C) as confirmed in Board order no. 12169-U. [ 80 ] This is a unanimous decision of the Board. ____________________ [NAME] ____________________ [NAME] Member ____________________ [NAME] Member