Find the latest updates and Bank communications, answers to frequently asked questions, and other related content.
The Bank has been in contract negotiations since April 2025 with the union representing 49 Security Officers who work in Ottawa and Montreal.
The labour disruption began on June 23.
The Bank has made a comprehensive proposal to the union and provided several options to address two key remaining issues.
The Bank values the contributions of all employees. We are committed to the collective bargaining process and to working with the union to negotiate a fair settlement.
The Bank will not, under any circumstances, compromise the safety and security of our employees, our buildings and the assets we protect on behalf of Canadians.
Latest updates
August 17, 2026
Bank of Canada sends Update for Security Officers and Clarification for Security Officers.
July 30, 2026
Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem wrote the following response to a published statement and letter from Bea Bruske, President of the Canadian Labour Congress, regarding the ongoing labour dispute involving the Bank and the union representing its Security Officers.
July 17, 2026
Bank of Canada sends Update for Security Officers.
Frequently asked questions
1. Why is the Bank communicating with us now?
You are our employees and we want to keep the lines of communication open.
We respect the bargaining process, and at this point we want to make sure that you really understand the issues that are prolonging the strike.
We are focused on communicating directly and factually so you have the information you need.
2. Is the Bank participating in negotiations at the bargaining table?
Yes. We continue to actively participate in the bargaining process because we want it to end with a fair deal for both sides.
We have attended all scheduled bargaining sessions and engaged in ongoing discussions with the union. We have also participated in discussions and meetings with both the conciliator and mediator, who are guiding the parties toward a resolution.
We have continued to propose different options to move things forward and are ready and willing to work through remaining issues so you can get back to work.
3. Why does the Bank need to move officers to different work locations?
There are many reasons, ranging from officers sometimes having to miss shifts due to illness to needing to respond to situations affecting our security. We need to be able to adjust our security posture using the resources available.
Our proposal is intended to address a specific situation at Head Office where the union says overtime should be paid. For example, if another officer calls in sick during a shift and you are already on duty at Head Office and can cover that post on a temporary basis, the Bank should be able to reassign you for the remainder of your shift without triggering overtime (which is concentrated among a small number of officers). You would remain at Head Office, work your regularly scheduled hours, and continue performing your duties.
The goal is simply to confirm flexibility to manage our staffing needs within Head Office during a scheduled shift.
4. Why is the Bank trying to cut costs knowing it could impact Security Officers?
We know this has been a difficult period, and discussions about costs can feel personal. We are not targeting Security Officers.
The Bank is part of a broader spending review process driven by the federal government, which requires us to reduce our budget by 15% by the end of 2028. To meet this goal, we have reduced more than 200 positions, but we also need to manage other costs.
In Security, overtime expenses are high. We need the proper tools to manage these costs while keeping our people, buildings, and operations safe.
5. Is the Bank trying to take away all overtime?
No. The Bank is not proposing to eliminate all overtime. You will continue to receive overtime pay when overtime is approved by management and you work beyond your scheduled full-time hours.
Our proposal is focused on a specific scenario at Head Office: when an officer who is already on duty is reassigned to a different location within the building during their scheduled shift. The union says this triggers a need to call someone on the overtime list. In the Bank’s view, this kind of reassignment does not require calling in another officer from the overtime list.
6. Are there any changes to seniority?
No. We are not proposing any changes to the collective agreement language for seniority or date of hire, and we have been very clear that we are open to adding more wording to ensure that is the case.
7. Why is the Bank not willing to negotiate job grades? How does the job evaluation process work?
Job grades can change, but they are not determined through collective bargaining. They are established through the Bank’s formal job evaluation process and may be reviewed when there are significant changes to a role. The process uses an independent third-party tool to assess factors such as responsibilities, required skills and knowledge, complexity, and impact, helping to ensure that similar jobs are evaluated fairly and consistently across the Bank.
The Bank’s job evaluation process has been reviewed and approved by a special committee as the tool the Bank uses to meet its pay equity obligations. The committee included eight Bank employees, three of whom were Security Officers, as well as one non-Bank employee nominated by PSAC.
The Bank proposed having the Montréal Security Officer position reviewed through this process and committed to accepting the outcome. The proposal also allows for a union representative to participate in the review and provide input, helping to support transparency.
8. Why did the Bank bring in a third party?
With the union withdrawing services, we had a duty to maintain a minimum-security posture to protect the remaining people in the building, the building itself, and our assets.
The Bank’s intention was to maintain a minimum level of protection for the building, not replace Security Officers.
The restrictions on replacement workers in the Canada Labour Code are not absolute, and they allow for exceptions in certain circumstances. We believed that the exceptions would apply to a situation like ours, where there were known threats to the safety and security of our people, facilities, and critical assets.
9. Why did the CIRB order the Bank to stop using replacement workers?
We are not sure why the order was made, because the Board member has not yet issued reasons explaining the decision.
Because provisions on replacement workers are still fairly new, there is not much guidance available on how they apply, and when exceptions can be made to protect people and property. The Bank took immediate steps to comply with the CIRB order once it was issued.
We are eagerly awaiting the reasons from the CIRB to understand what the Labour Code requires and why the Board member did not believe that the Bank could use replacement workers in a limited way to protect its people and property. We have taken steps to allow us to ask a court to review the order if we decide it is necessary.
10. Did the Bank intentionally violate the CIRB’s order when it brought in a second third party?
No. While we did not have reasons from the first order to tell us exactly what we could and could not do, the Bank believed that it would be permitted to have at least a basic level of deterrence by parking security cars outside its buildings.
The Board member issued a second order directing the Bank to stop this activity and we complied immediately.
Contact
Security officers should talk to their union bargaining team for more information.
If you have further questions, contact