Union claims Toronto employer had no authority to conduct interview
When a Pearson International Airport screening officer was summoned to meet with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority following a security incident, his employer gave him an ultimatum: attend without union representation or face indefinite unpaid suspension.
The threat came after the union refused to participate, claiming the federal regulator had no authority to conduct the interview.
In a decision issued Nov. 24, 2025, Arbitrator Derek L. Rogers ruled that while the employer's conduct may constitute coercion, the union overstepped by trying to challenge the government agency's statutory powers through a workplace grievance.
The case of the missing union rep
GardaWorld Security Screening Inc., a contractor authorized by CATSA to perform security screening at Canadian airports, had already disciplined the screening officer with a one-day suspension for the security breach. When CATSA subsequently scheduled its own investigation meeting, the Canadian Airport Workers Union took a hard line.
Union representatives told the employer they considered such meetings contrary to both the collective agreement and CATSA's statutory authority, and would not attend.
GardaWorld responded by telling the officer that if he did not attend the CATSA meeting, he would be "placed on an unpaid suspension for an indefinite period of time," according to the union's grievance. The officer attended without representation.
The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated multiple collective agreement articles and the Canada Labour Code by "coercing [the officer] into waiving his right to union representation by threatening him with an unpaid LOA." The grievance sought compensation for both the officer and the union for loss of representational rights, plus a declaration that all decisions following the unrepresented meeting be void.
When strategy exceeds scope
The union attempted to expand the grievance beyond the coercion claim, seeking a declaration that CATSA's investigation was unlawful and demanding relief based on the federal agency exceeding its authority. The employer objected, arguing this was an improper attempt to litigate a third party's statutory powers outside the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
GardaWorld submitted that "the issue in the Grievance relates solely to whether it was permissible for Garda to direct an employee to attend a third-party meeting and indicate discipline may follow should the employee refuse, and then ultimately allow the employee to attend in the absence of a Union representative (after Union representatives refused to attend)." The employer added that "the statutory authority of the third party requesting that meeting is irrelevant."
The union countered that determining whether CATSA acted lawfully was necessary to resolve the grievance, arguing the employer could not threaten suspension to compel attendance at an illegal meeting. They maintained the arbitrator had authority under the Canada Labour Code to interpret employment-related statutes like the CATSA Act.
Jurisdictional lines drawn
Arbitrator Rogers found the union's challenge to CATSA's powers was never mentioned in the original grievance text and represented a separate legal issue requiring different evidence and arguments. The grievance complained about coercion and lack of representation, not the legitimacy of the regulatory meeting itself.
The arbitrator wrote: "I have found that the Union's position is based on the introduction of the ultra vires complaint arising to be beyond the scope of the Grievance, the collective agreement and the jurisdiction of a rights arbitrator appointed under that collective agreement." He noted the parties' collective agreement specifically limits arbitrators to issues raised in the written grievance.
Rogers sustained the employer's preliminary objections, ruling that "the Union is held to the text of the Grievance and is not entitled under its terms to litigate the allegation that CATSA's convening the meeting in question was an ultra vires act." The underlying coercion claim remains to be decided.
