Union Wins Expansion of Bargaining Unit at Canada Industrial Relations Board
📌 In brief
The Canada Industrial Relations Board allowed a union to expand its bargaining unit to include maintenance technicians, fibre/construction technicians, and material handlers. The board determined that the union had shown majority support among these workers and within the expanded unit.
⚖️ Legal holding
A union may expand its bargaining unit if it demonstrates majority support among the employees to be added and within the expanded unit.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows the Canada Industrial Relations Board to look at, cancel, change, or adjust any decision or order it has made. It also lets the Board rehear an application before making a decision about it.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Canada Industrial Relations Board granted the union's application to expand the bargaining unit.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Canada Industrial Relations Board granted the union's application to expand its bargaining unit to include maintenance technicians, fibre/construction technicians, and material handlers, finding the union had demonstrated majority support among the employees to be added and within the expanded unit.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Interim Order No.: 12153-U Supersedes: 12098-U IN THE MATTER OF THE Canada Labour Code - and - Metro Cable T.V. Maintenance and Service Employees’ Association, applicant, - and - [COMPANY]., Toronto, Ontario, employer. WHEREAS , on March 13, 2024, the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the Board) received an application from the Metro Cable T.V. Maintenance and Service Employees’ Association (the applicant or the union), pursuant to section 18 of the Canada Labour Code (the Code ) , seeking to amend interim order no. 11776-U certifying it as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of [COMPANY]. (the employer) (Board file no. 037504-C); AND WHEREAS the applicant seeks to expand its [NAME] by adding maintenance technicians, fibre/construction technicians and material handlers working at or from the employer’s location at [ADDRESS] in [NAME], Ontario (the [NAME]); AND WHEREAS , in accordance with the Board’s usual practice, it directed that notices of the application be posted in conspicuous places in the workplaces of all employees who were affected by the application; AND WHEREAS the employer initially opposed the application and argued that it should be dismissed as the expanded bargaining unit sought by the applicant was not appropriate for collective bargaining; AND WHEREAS , in the alternative, the employer argued that an oral hearing should be held to determine the issue and that a representation vote was required to assess the level of support within the expanded bargaining unit; AND WHEREAS , following its reasons in [COMPANY]. , 2025 [NAME] 1180, the Board determined that it was appropriate to revise and update the bargaining unit description found in interim order no. 11776-U and to issue a final certification order (Board order no. 12098-U); AND WHEREAS , after consideration of the parties’ submissions, the Board convened the parties to a case management conference (CMC) to discuss the file, obtain additional information and determine the next steps; AND WHEREAS , at the CMC, the Board confirmed that there was no dispute that the roles of the [NAME] in each of the classifications are the same as the roles of their counterparts in the [NAME]; AND WHEREAS , as agreed with the parties, the Board suspended the treatment of the file to allow the parties to participate in a mediation session with its Industrial Relations Officer; AND WHEREAS , in a letter dated December 2, 2025, the employer confirmed on behalf of the parties that they had reached an agreement; AND WHEREAS , in its December 2, 2025, letter, the employer confirmed that it no longer opposed the application, noted that the parties jointly requested that the Board process the application and stated that, should the Board grant the application, the parties should be provided with an opportunity to propose an amended bargaining unit description for the Board’s consideration; AND WHEREAS there is no dispute, and the Board accepts, that the union is seeking an expansion of the [NAME], such that it has to demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed expanded unit and satisfy the requirements of the double majority rule; AND WHEREAS the Board, in accordance with the double majority rule, has to ascertain the wishes of the employees to be added to the unit as well as the overall majority support within the expanded unit; AND WHEREAS the Board is satisfied that while the positions to be added in this file are outside the scope of the original bargaining unit, their inclusion in the bargaining unit will result in a unit that is as appropriate for collective bargaining as the existing unit; AND WHEREAS , following investigation of the application and consideration of the submissions of the parties concerned, including a review of the confidential membership evidence filed in respect of the [NAME], the Board has determined that the applicant has demonstrated majority support within the group of employees that it seeks to add to the [NAME] and that those employees wish to be represented by the applicant; AND WHEREAS the Board has not received any objections or expressions of concern following the posting of the notices of application that would cause it to question the ongoing majority support of the employees within the [NAME]; AND WHEREAS the Board is satisfied that, in the circumstances, it can presume that there is ongoing support for the union from the employees in the [NAME] and accepts that the applicant continues to have majority support within its [NAME]; AND WHEREAS the Board is satisfied that the applicant has majority support within the group it seeks to add and within the overall proposed expanded bargaining unit, such that it has satisfied the requirements of the double majority rule; AND WHEREAS the Board, in consideration of the parties’ agreement and pursuant to its powers under section 20(1) of the Code , deems it appropriate: a) to grant the application and amend Board order no. 12098-U to add the maintenance technicians, fibre/construction technicians and material handlers working at or from the employer’s location at [ADDRESS] in [NAME], Ontario; and b) to reserve its jurisdiction to update and finalize the description of the bargaining unit once it has considered the parties’ proposed updated bargaining unit description. NOW, THEREFORE , it is ordered by the Canada Industrial Relations Board that the Metro Cable T.V. Maintenance and Service Employees’ Association be, and it is hereby certified to be, the bargaining agent for a unit comprising: all full-time employees of [COMPANY]. employed at or from the following locations in the classifications listed: i) 853, 855 and [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS], Toronto, Ontario: material handler, stores, work order control coordinator, dispatch, NTMC analyst, connected home technician, service/install technician, senior service/install technician, maintenance technician, construction technician, fibre technician, fibre/construction technician, platform technician and head end technician. ii) 234 and [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], Ontario: dispatch, FSC analyst, connected home technician, service/install technician, senior service/install technician, maintenance technician, construction technician, fibre technician and fibre/construction technician. iii) [ADDRESS], Scarborough, Ontario: stores, work order control coordinator, dispatch, NTMC analyst, connected home technician, service/install technician, senior service/install technician, maintenance technician, construction technician, fibre technician, fibre/construction technician, platform technician and head end technician. iv) [ADDRESS], Mississauga, Ontario: stores, work order control coordinator, dispatch, NTMC analyst, connected home technician, service/install technician, senior service/install technician, maintenance technician, construction technician, fibre technician, fibre/construction technician, platform technician and head end technician. v) [ADDRESS], Vaughan, Ontario: material handler. vi) [ADDRESS], Etobicoke, Ontario: connected home technician, service/install technician, senior service/install technician, maintenance technician and head end technician. vii) 141 and [ADDRESS], Hamilton, Ontario: material handler, connected home technician, service/install technician, senior service/install technician, maintenance technician, platform technician and head end technician. viii) [ADDRESS], [NAME], Ontario: maintenance technician, fibre/construction technician and material handler. ISSUED at Ottawa, this 27th day of January, 2026, by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. [NAME]-Chairperson Reference: File No. 037504-C
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The union demonstrated majority support among the employees to be added to the bargaining unit.
- The union showed that the proposed expanded unit is as appropriate for collective bargaining as the existing unit.
- The union satisfied the double majority rule by showing majority support within the group to be added and within the overall proposed expanded bargaining unit.
- The employer confirmed an agreement with the union and no longer opposed the application.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The employer's initial opposition to the application based on the inappropriateness of the expanded bargaining unit was not successful.
- The employer's request for an oral hearing and a representation vote was not granted.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Canada Industrial Relations Board granted the union's application to expand its bargaining unit.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over whether the union could expand its bargaining unit to include maintenance technicians, fibre/construction technicians, and material handlers.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant the application because the union demonstrated majority support among the employees to be added and within the expanded unit.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Canada Labour Code, section 18, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The union's demonstration of majority support among the employees to be added and within the expanded unit was the central argument.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the union.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can seek to expand their bargaining unit if they can show majority support among the employees to be added and within the expanded unit.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents used to demonstrate majority support.
