The Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) has released its final decision addressing all outstanding issues.

WestJet had made several challenges to the CIRB, including the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, the inclusion or exclusion of certain positions and the integrity of the membership evidence.

We are happy to announce the union has been successful on all accounts, and the labour board saw no merit in the claims from WestJet.

The full decision can be read here

Disputed Coordinator Positions (37 Jobs)

The Board requested submissions from the parties concerning the six disputed coordinator positions. They were received and reviewed by the Board. The Board has concluded that all six positions are to be included in the bargaining unit.

Airport Learning Coordinator, Coordinator Daily Duty, Coordinator IROP, Coordinator Workforce, Turnaround Coordinator, and Quality Advisor will remain as members of Unifor and will be covered by the collective agreement once negotiated.

Reason for Decesion (CIRB)

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions on these disputed positions, the Board will outline its decision for each position and, in some cases, will group similar positions where its analysis is applicable to more than one position.

Airport Learning Coordinator and Coordinator Airport Learning

[66] The employer did not argue that these coordinator positions are managerial in nature or that they should be excluded from the bargaining unit because the incumbents perform managerial functions. The employer also did not argue that the positions involve acting in a confidential capacity in matters relating to industrial relations. It is thus not disputed that the employees holding these positions are “employees” within the meaning of the Code.

[67] The employer submitted that these positions are not engaged in direct frontline service to guests but rather are responsible for the coordination of annual training requirements for employees and the facilitation of on-the-job training. The employer noted that the positions report to the Learning and Development leadership team. In the employer’s view, these positions should also be excluded by definition given that they are either an administrative or employee support role.

[68] The union submitted that these coordinator positions have an integral relationship with other employees working in guest services and noted that they are typically filled by former customer service agents (CSAs) who are promoted from within the group and have demonstrated the ability to provide a high standard of service to guests. Further, the excerpts from the job description that were provided by the union confirm that the incumbents provide regular on-the-job training for guest services employees to ensure standardized frontline support.

[69] The union also provided the Board with a copy of the Terms of Reference for the Airport Employees Association (AEA). The Board notes that the airport learning coordinator and the coordinator airport learning were previously part of the AEA, along with other guest services employees who are now included in the bargaining unit. The Terms of Reference stipulate that the membership of the AEA would work collaboratively with the employer to advocate for matters affecting compensation, scheduling, benefits, policies or working conditions.

[70] The Board is persuaded that these coordinators share a community of interest with the other members of the bargaining unit and have interrelated roles with the guest services group. Although these coordinator positions may not perform frontline duties, the incumbents work in support of the employees in the bargaining unit who do perform such duties. Further, the fact that these positions were included in the AEA demonstrates to the Board that they are governed by similar terms and conditions of employment.

[71] Accordingly, it is the Board’s decision that the positions of airport learning coordinator and coordinator airport learning are to be included in the bargaining unit.

Daily Duty Coordinators, IROP Coordinator and Workforce Coordinators

[72] The employer did not argue that these coordinator positions perform managerial duties or that they should be excluded from the bargaining unit. The employer also did not argue that these positions involve acting in a confidential capacity in matters relating to industrial relations. It is thus not disputed that the employees holding these positions are “employees” within the meaning of the Code.

[73] The employer submitted that the daily duty coordinators engage in assigning daily duties for members of guest services (the CSAs). The IROP coordinators are responsible for responding to irregular operational activity and in doing so must advise guest services lead staff of contingency plans for the delivery of service. The workforce coordinators reconcile work schedules at the end of averaging periods to oversee and coordinate overtime scheduling.

[74] The employer submitted that the daily duty, IROP and workforce coordinator positions are not roles that require employees to engage in frontline guest services support. Further, the employer submitted that all three coordinator positions are considered to be either administrative or employee support functions. For these reasons, the employer argues that the positions should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

[75] The union submitted that these three coordinator positions have an integral relationship with employees in guest services who are members of the bargaining unit. It noted that the positions are typically filled by former CSAs who have knowledge of the role, and all were part of the AEA.

[76] The Board is persuaded that these three coordinator positions share a community of interest with the other members of the bargaining unit. The daily duty coordinator’s responsibility to assign duties is essentially a scheduling function and, in this instance, is performed in support of the employees in the bargaining unit. The IROP coordinator’s role as a technical expert regarding specific partner airline agreements and active assistance to the frontline employees with escalated technical assistance, guidance and support is a demonstration of the interrelationship of this position with guest services employees. The workforce coordinator’s role in creating, adjusting and reconciling work schedules for frontline staff to ensure that the staffing needs of the guest services employees are met is also an integrated and supportive function to those employees covered by the bargaining unit.

Turnaround Coordinator

[77] The employer submitted that these coordinators have managerial responsibilities and should primarily be excluded from the bargaining unit on that basis. It stated that the position supports other managers, called zone managers, by managing “flight turns” and, in doing so, must coordinate resources in both the “above the wing” and “below the wing” roles. Further, the employer emphasizes that incumbents in this role are not directly involved in guest services and do not provide frontline guest services support.

[78] The employer submitted that the position should also be excluded because, in addition to its managerial role, it is considered an administrative or employee support function.

[79] The union noted that there is integration between these coordinators and all operational partners, including guest services, for issues arising when an aircraft is offloaded and boarded while at the airport for turnaround.

[80] The basis of the exclusion of management persons from a bargaining unit is the avoidance of conflicts of interest for those persons with the employer and the union. The conflict of interest arises given management’s authority to dismiss or discipline fellow employees. It is for this reason that managers are denied collective bargaining rights granted to other employees. In order for an employee to be a considered a manager and to therefore be excluded from employee status under the Code, they must have real or final decision-making powers impacting the employment of other employees (see Island Telephone Company Limited (1990), 81 di 126 (CLRB no. 811)).

[81] In this case, the employer has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate that the incumbents in the turnaround coordinator position exercise any authority over hiring, discipline or termination or any broader operational or strategic responsibilities that would necessitate their exclusion based on managerial status. Further, like the other coordinators discussed in this decision, these coordinators were also included in the AEA. The Board is persuaded that these coordinators also have a community of interest with the other employees in the bargaining unit given their interrelated roles with guest services.

[82] Accordingly, it is the Board’s decision that the turnaround coordinators are to be included in the bargaining unit.

Quality Advisor

Discussions took place between the Board’s Regional Director and the parties in an effort to narrow the issues in dispute, including on the outstanding inclusions in and exclusions from the proposed bargaining unit. The Board’s policy requires an investigating officer to prepare a letter accurately setting out the Board’s understanding of the proposed bargaining unit. Following a May 5, 2021, teleconference between the parties and the Board’s Regional Director, such a letter was sent to the parties for review.

The inclusions and exclusions were clearly set out, and the parties were given 24 hours to submit any questions or concerns. The letter specified the understanding that the quality advisor role was to be included in the bargaining unit

If you haven't talked to your coworkers at YYZ and YEG, let them know they can sign a Unifor Membership card today. It is time for them to join you at the bargaining table; they can do this at join.unifor.org/federalcard

Frances Galambosy
[email protected]
416.497.4110

Leslie Dias
[email protected]
416.315.2134

Billy O’Neill
[email protected]
416.605.1443