Granting Application to Expand Bargaining Unit - Canada Industrial Relations Board
📌 In brief
The Canada Industrial Relations Board approved an application to add new positions to a union's bargaining unit. This decision was made after confirming that a majority of both the current and new employees supported the expansion.
⚖️ Legal holding
An application to expand a bargaining unit can be granted if the double majority test is met.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's application to expand the bargaining unit was granted after meeting the double majority test.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Canada Industrial Relations Board granted an application to expand a bargaining unit after determining that the double majority test was met.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Order No.: 12175-U Supersedes: 11017-U IN THE MATTER OF THE [NAME] - and - [NAME], applicant, - and - [COMPANY], Ottawa, Ontario, employer. WHEREAS the [NAME] (the Board), by order no. 11017-U dated June 6, 2016 (which superseded order no. 2664-U), certified the [NAME] (the applicant) as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the [COMPANY] (the employer); AND WHEREAS the Board has received an application from the applicant, pursuant to section 18 of the [NAME] , seeking to amend order no. 11017-U to include the position of welcome centre attendant in the bargaining unit ; AND WHEREAS the employer is not opposed to this application; AND WHEREAS , following investigation of the application and consideration of the submissions of the parties concerned, the Board has determined that the application to review the existing certification order is an application to expand the bargaining unit; AND WHEREAS , following investigation of the application and consideration of the submissions of the parties concerned, the Board has determined that the double majority test applicable in an application to expand a bargaining unit is met and that there is evidence before it that there is majority support among the group of employees to be added to the bargaining unit and majority support within the overall expanded bargaining unit; AND WHEREAS , following investigation of the application and consideration of the submissions of the parties concerned, the Board has determined that it is appropriate to grant the application. NOW, THEREFORE , the [NAME] hereby confirms that the [NAME] is the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit comprising: all persons employed by the [COMPANY] as captain ushers, ushers and tour guides, all employees of the [NAME] and all welcome centre attendants, excluding coordinators and those above the rank of coordinator. ISSUED at Ottawa, this 13 th day of April, 2026, by the [NAME]. [NAME]-Chairperson Reference: File No. 039542-C
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The employer did not object to the application to expand the bargaining unit.
- The Board found that the double majority test for expanding a bargaining unit was satisfied.
- There was majority support among the employees to be added to the bargaining unit.
- There was majority support within the overall expanded bargaining unit.
- The Board determined it was appropriate to grant the application to amend the certification order.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision granted the application to expand the bargaining unit.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether to include the position of welcome centre attendant in the existing bargaining unit.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant the application because the double majority test was met, indicating majority support among the employees to be added and within the overall expanded unit.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was proving that the double majority test was satisfied, showing majority support for the expansion.
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?
For someone in a similar situation, meeting the double majority test could lead to the successful expansion of their bargaining unit.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents used to make the decision.