Decision on Trade Union Succession Through Secret Ballot Vote
📌 In brief
The Canada Industrial Relations Board decided that a new trade union could become the bargaining agent for a group of workers after a majority of the workers voted in favour of the change during a secret ballot vote.
⚖️ Legal holding
A trade union may succeed another as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees through a secret ballot vote.
📖 Technical summary
The Canada Industrial Relations Board declared a new bargaining agent after a successful secret ballot vote.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Canada Industrial Relations Board declared a new bargaining agent for a unit of employees after a majority voted in favour of the transfer of jurisdiction during a secret ballot vote.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Order No.: 12196-U Supersedes: 11891-U IN THE MATTER OF THE Canada Labour Code - and - [NAME], applicant, - and - [COMPANY]., Burnaby, British Columbia, employer, - and - [NAME], certified bargaining agent. WHEREAS the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the Board), by order no. 11891‑U dated December 27, 2023 , certified the [NAME] (the certified bargaining agent or [NAME]), as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of [COMPANY]. (the employer) working in Richmond, British Columbia; AND WHEREAS the Board has received an application, pursuant to section 43(1) of the Canada Labour Code , from the [NAME] (the applicant or [NAME]), seeking a declaration that, as a result of a transfer of jurisdiction among trade unions, [NAME] succeeds [NAME] as the bargaining agent for the said unit of employees of the employer; AND WHEREAS the employer and the certified bargaining agent do not object to the application; AND [NAME] conducted a secret ballot vote from May 14 to 16, 2024, among the employees in the bargaining unit to determine whether they wanted [NAME] to transfer its jurisdiction to [NAME] as their bargaining agent; AND WHEREAS a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit voted in favour of transferring jurisdiction to [NAME]; AND WHEREAS , following the transfer of jurisdiction, the employer recognized [NAME] as the successor bargaining agent and entered into collective bargaining with it, which resulted in a collective agreement with a term of June 1, 2024, to May 31, 2027; AND WHEREAS , following investigation of the application and consideration of the submissions of the parties concerned, the Board is satisfied that the transfer of jurisdiction among trade unions has occurred. NOW, THEREFORE , the Canada Industrial Relations Board hereby declares that the [NAME], is now the successor bargaining agent and, as such, has acquired all the rights, privileges and duties of the [NAME], with respect to the certified bargaining unit described as follows: all employees of [COMPANY]. working at and from 15611 [ADDRESS], Richmond, British Columbia, excluding supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, technical specialists and professional engineers. ISSUED at Ottawa, this 30 th day of June 2026, by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. [NAME]-Chairperson Reference: File No. 039548-C
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The employer and the previously certified bargaining agent did not oppose the application for the transfer of jurisdiction.
- A secret ballot vote was conducted among the employees in the bargaining unit.
- A majority of employees in the bargaining unit voted in favor of transferring jurisdiction.
- The employer recognized the applicant as the successor bargaining agent and entered into a collective agreement.
- The Board was satisfied that a transfer of jurisdiction among trade unions had occurred.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision declared a new trade union as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether a new trade union could succeed another as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the new trade union because a majority of the employees voted in favour of the change during a secret ballot vote.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the decision.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that a majority of the employees voted in favour of the change during a secret ballot vote.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the new trade union.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, a new trade union can become the bargaining agent for a unit of employees if a majority of the employees vote in favour of the change during a secret ballot vote.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered was the results of the secret ballot vote.