We have had numerous members reaching out with their feedback about the Interest Arbitration hearing that was held yesterday. Some members did not understand how what was supposed to be three days of hearings was condensed into one.
We want to let you know a little more about the background of how we arrived at this point and all the months of work that went into this process prior to yesterday’s hearing.
In many interest arbitrations, if the parties file detailed written submissions in advance of the hearing, the hearing itself can often be completed in a single day. If witnesses are cross-examined, however, additional hearing days are often almost always required. Other factors can also affect how long a hearing takes.
A case-management hearing was held with Arbitrator Knopf last year to establish the process for the interest arbitration. It was hoped that the hearing could be completed in one day if everything proceeded smoothly. However, as the parties did not yet know how long the hearing would actually take, additional days were booked as a precaution.
Dates with labour arbitrators are very difficult to nail down and we set aside three days to protect them.
On December 17, 2025, the Union and Air Canada exchanged their main written submissions. The Union’s brief, including appendices, was 4,612 pages long and contained detailed legal and factual arguments. Air Canada filed its own written brief in response, which was also lengthy.
The Union’s position is that members are entitled to wage increases that match or exceed the hourly wage rates at Air Transat, that the same hourly wage rates should apply to both Mainline and Rouge work, and that a cost-of-living increase should be triggered in April 2028 if inflation is high in the preceding year. Air Canada argued that members were only entitled to the wage rates contained in its last offer, an offer that employees rejected by 99.1%.
On January 9, 2026, the parties exchanged responding submissions. The Union’s responding brief, including appendices, was 2,029 pages long and addressed Air Canada’s arguments in detail. Air Canada again filed a lengthy responding brief.
Together, these written submissions addressed numerous complex and competing legal and factual issues, including but not limited to:
– bargaining history
– the government’s intervention in the strike
– Air Canada’s financial position
– the legal interpretation of the August 19, 2025 Memorandum of Settlement and the membership vote
– evaluation of the Company’s and the Union’s wage proposals
– internal and external wage comparators
– wage disparities between pilots and flight attendants
– unpaid work and compensation below minimum wage
The Union’s submissions were prepared by legal counsel, with support from researchers, experts, our National representative, the bargaining committee and other supporting staff.
As part of its case, the Union submitted an expert report from economist Dr. Jim Stanford. The report concluded that Air Canada’s wage offer failed to fully restore the real value of wages for most Cabin Personnel and that the Company had the financial capacity to improve its proposal. Dr. Stanford also concluded that, given Air Canada’s significant increases in pilot compensation, its much more modest wage proposal for Cabin Personnel would significantly worsen gender pay inequality within the Company.
Air Canada had the right to cross-examine Dr. Stanford, a process that is often lengthy. After reviewing the report, Air Canada advised that it did not wish to cross-examine him. Air Canada also did not submit an expert report of its own.
On Friday, January 16, 2026, after business hours, Air Canada sent a letter to the Arbitrator and Union counsel raising, for the first time, an objection to Dr. Stanford’s report. Air Canada argued that the report should be given no weight, despite its decision not to cross-examine Dr. Stanford. The Company asserted that the report was not relevant, not necessary, and that Dr. Stanford was not a qualified expert.
The hearing took place on January 19, 2026. Many members attended to observe, and the Union is grateful for the strong show of support.
The Arbitrator had reviewed all written materials in advance. As is standard practice, she asked for focused oral submissions rather than a repetition of the written briefs. The Union was required to address Air Canada’s objection to Dr. Stanford’s report during the hearing. Legal counsel did so and advocated strongly for the reasons why it should be considered and how it was relevant is many ways to the matter before the arbitrator. She had some strong and insightful questions which our lawyers were able to address in a concise and assertive manner.
The hearing ran overtime in order to be completed on January 19, 2026.
Legal proceedings often look very different from how they are portrayed on television. Most of the interest arbitration occurs through written submissions. While the Arbitrator made efforts to explain aspects of the process to observers, it can be difficult to fully understand procedural issues, and difficult to situate oneself in the hearing without having reviewed the written materials.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Arbitrator advised that she intends to aim (though she did not promise) to issue her decision within six weeks (March 2, 2026). If that is not possible, she indicated that she would provide an update at that time.
As soon as we have any new information to provide we will update the membership. Thank you to those who attended. We know that those who were not able to attend were with us in spirit and we felt the support of the membership behind us.
In Solidarity,
Your Bargaining Committee