Tentative Deal Not Ratified - For the most up to date bargaining info www.accomponent.ca
This is what solidarity looks like.
Percentage of YES votes: 0.9%
Percentage of NO votes: 99.1%
Percentage of the Membership that voted: 94.6%
As many members are likely aware, we have received the ratification results for the Agreed to Items and the employers wage proposal. It was a resounding “NO” from the membership. This means that the outstanding wage issue will proceed to mediation and Interest Arbitration. The question of which Arbitrator will be chosen is now a matter of discussion between the parties. If the parties cannot agree upon a mediator/arbitrator, Chief Arbitrator William Kaplan will choose one in consultation with the parties. Once the arbitration is concluded and a decision is rendered, the wages will be retroactive to April 1, 2025.
Many members have asked about the mediation portion as the Company noted this in a recent release, this is a normal process where the mediator/ arbitrator will attempt to get the two sides to agree to an outcome, the mediation process is one where a third party will assist but can not impose. This is much like the process we went through in bargaining, where we had 4 federally appointed mediators. Your Union has been clear; arbitration is where we will end up and the company has not come forward with a wage proposal we can accept. Your Union is not willing to accept less than what our counterparts in Canada make, we are not willing to agree wages that will keep our members under the poverty line, and for this we see that arbitration is where we will end up.
As a part of our ongoing efforts to ensure that you have an educated view of what happens next, we have provided a brief primer on Interest Arbitration.
Interest arbitration is a process by which an arbitrator determines what the parties might have eventually settled for had they reached an agreement themselves. In doing so, the interest arbitrator is guided by the following principles:
Replication: the objective of fashioning an award that, to the extent possible, replicates the settlement the parties would have reached had the dispute been allowed to run its full course. In this regard, interest arbitrators look to benchmarks in the community (in our case to other major Canadian corporations and to the airline industry) and to the bargaining history between the parties.
The principle of gradualism reflects the reality that collective bargaining between mature bargaining parties, as these are, is a continuum that most often accomplishes gradual change as distinct from drastic change. It follows that absent compelling evidence, an interest arbitrator will be loath to award "breakthrough" items.
The principle of demonstrated need provides a counterbalance to the principle of gradualism. It does so by establishing the basis upon which an arbitrator will award a “breakthrough” item, something they are generally reluctant to award. A party seeking a major or even a radical change must convincingly establish the need for such change, hence the term demonstrated need.
The Parties do not have control over what the arbitrator determines: the interest arbitrator decides the content of a collective agreement, and with limited exceptions, there is no possibility of judicially reviewing their decision.
Wage Increase
As per the agreement between the Parties reached on August 19, 2025, the only item advancing to interest arbitration is the unratified wage issue. The other agreed items form part of the new collective agreement.
Wages are typically among the highest priorities in each round of collective bargaining. In interest arbitration, arbitrators often evaluate wage and compensation proposals holistically, considering the full range of remuneration provided to employees.
Both internal comparators (i.e. within the same organization) and external comparators (i.e. similar positions in other companies) may be considered in the analysis. We will continue to reply on the expertise we have in costing, data analysis, legal and labour to ensure we have all the facts needed to represent our arguments and needs for solid increases, across the wage grid.
