An arbitration board has rejected a union’s bid to secure wage increases above the standard federal public service pattern for 11 air traffic control regulatory employees, ruling there was insufficient evidence of recruitment and retention problems to justify breaking from established compensation norms.
The Canadian Air Traffic Control Association Unifor Local 5454 sought higher wages for Treasury Board employees in the Air Traffic Control Group, arguing their specialized regulatory work warranted compensation comparable to non-operational staff at Nav Canada, the private corporation that handles Canada’s civilian air traffic control operations.
The union proposed adding an additional higher step to the wage grid, pointing to a significant pay gap between the federal employees and their Nav Canada counterparts who perform similar administrative and regulatory duties.
However, the three-member arbitration panel concluded the bargaining unit should follow the wage pattern established for more than 98% of unionized employees in the Core Public Administration, most of whom had already finalized their collective agreements through negotiation or arbitration.
Union’s case falls short on recruitment concerns
The union’s primary argument centered on anticipated recruitment and retention challenges, given that nine of the 11 employees are in their late 50s or older, with the oldest being 62. Only one employee is under 50.
M.G., a bargaining unit member who testified at the hearing, stated “there is a significant group of employees who expect to retire within two to three years.” He suggested better compensation would help with future recruitment and pointed to risks of waiting until recruitment problems actually emerged, given the required training period for new hires and the need for current employees to train newcomers.
The arbitration board acknowledged the potential benefit of addressing recruitment issues proactively but found the evidence insufficient. The panel noted the bargaining unit had been “very stable,” with employees hired between 2011 and 2024 and no demonstrated difficulty recruiting new staff.
Of the current employees, seven came from the Canadian Armed Forces, three from Nav Canada, and one from the Australian public service with previous Nav Canada experience. Their years of service with Transport Canada range from two to 18 years.
Replication principle guides decision
The arbitration board applied the established replication principle, which requires arbitrators to determine what the parties would have agreed to in free collective bargaining. The panel found the clear pattern established across the federal public service was a powerful factor favoring the employer’s position.
The board rejected three key union arguments. First, while acknowledging non-operational Nav Canada staff receive higher salaries, the arbitrators concluded this compensation is likely driven by supply and demand for operational air traffic controllers and represents a spillover benefit rather than a true comparator for regulatory work.
Second, the panel noted that air traffic control regulatory employees are not unique within the federal public service, pointing to railway and marine regulators in transportation, as well as federal employees who regulate mines, forests, and food security. No evidence showed these other regulatory groups had deviated from the general pattern.
Third, the board found no current recruitment and retention problems that would justify departing from established norms, despite acknowledging future challenges could emerge.
Previous arbitration decisions influence ruling
The arbitration panel relied heavily on two previous decisions involving federal aviation employees. A 2005 ruling involving the same Air Traffic Control Group rejected a union proposal for above-pattern increases based on Nav Canada compensation, finding an “absence of demonstrated necessity” and cautioning against “preemptive wage restructuring.”
A 2024 decision involving the Aircraft Operations Group provided more nuanced guidance. That arbitration board awarded above-pattern increases only to pilots within the bargaining unit, recognizing serious pilot shortages and escalating wages. However, regulatory employees in that group received standard pattern increases.
The current arbitration panel applied this logic, noting that if the air traffic control employees performed direct operational work, “the case for a higher wage increase would be stronger.” Since all bargaining unit members perform regulatory rather than operational functions, the standard pattern applied.
Final award details
The four-year collective agreement covering July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2026, includes economic increases of 3.5% in 2022, 3.0% in 2023, and 2.0% in both 2024 and 2025. Additional wage adjustments of 1.25%, 0.5%, and 0.25% apply for the first three years respectively.
Each bargaining unit member will receive a one-time payment of $2,500 upon implementation, with all increases applied retroactively.
The board made several other rulings, including reducing the threshold for higher classification duties from four to three consecutive working days and adding provisions for leave for traditional Indigenous practices.
Dissenting voice raises concerns
The union-nominated arbitrator issued a dissent, arguing for a “forward-looking approach” that would examine identifiable future factors rather than waiting for problems to manifest. The dissent highlighted the “unusual age demographics of the unit, the restricted labour market from which employees are drawn, the continually increasing compensation gap between the Employer and others in this restricted market.”
The dissenting arbitrator expressed particular concern about timing, noting that air traffic control is undergoing “radical change in service delivery, training, and skill sets, all driven by new technology” and warning that staffing problems could develop “at the wrong time” given these industry transitions.
For more information, see Arbitral Award (Canadian air traffic control association and Treasury Board), 2025 CanLII 71082 (PSLREB).
By the numbers
| Federal Air Traffic Control Arbitration Key Details | |
|---|---|
| Case Overview | |
| Parties | Canadian Air Traffic Control Association Unifor Local 5454 vs. Treasury Board |
| Bargaining Unit Size | 11 employees in Air Traffic Control Group (AI Group) |
| Contract Term | July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2026 (4 years) |
| Hearing Dates | June 24-25, 2025 in Ottawa |
| Wage Increases Awarded | |
| July 1, 2022 | 3.5% economic increase + 1.25% wage adjustment |
| July 1, 2023 | 3.0% economic increase + 0.5% wage adjustment |
| July 1, 2024 | 2.0% economic increase + 0.25% wage adjustment |
| July 1, 2025 | 2.0% economic increase |
| One-time Payment | $2,500 per employee (retroactive) |
| Employee Demographics | |
| Age Distribution | 9 employees in late 50s or older (oldest: 62), only 1 under 50 |
| Background | 7 from Canadian Armed Forces, 3 from Nav Canada, 1 from Australian public service |
| Hire Dates | Between 2011-2024 |
| Years of Service | 2 to 18 years with Transport Canada |
| Union Proposals Rejected | |
| Extra Wage Grid Steps | No additional steps added to wage grid |
| Overtime Rate Changes | No changes to Article 17.02 overtime rates |
| Holiday Pay Changes | No changes to Article 20.02 holiday pay rates |
| Travel Time Cap | 15-hour cap remains (recommended for labour-management consultation) |
| Vacation Leave | No changes to current provisions |
| Changes Granted | |
| Higher Classification Duties | Reduced from 4 to 3 consecutive working days |
| Overpayment Notice | Must provide advice “as soon as possible after discovery” |
| Implementation Timeline | Manual processing within 360 days of agreement signature |
| Indigenous Leave | New provision for traditional Indigenous practices |
| Key Legal Principles | |
| Replication Principle | Arbitrators must replicate what parties would agree to in free bargaining |
| Pattern Bargaining | 98% of Core Public Administration employees had settled using established pattern |
| Demonstrated Necessity | No current evidence of recruitment/retention problems to justify deviation |
| Decision Split | 2-1 majority (union nominee dissented) |
