Labor negotiations serve two fundamental purposes: (1) protecting members’ right to organize and be represented by a union, and (2) allow employee representatives and employers to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment.

The objectives are best achieved when bargaining units are composed of employees who share a recognizable community of interest regarding the subjects governed by the collective bargaining agreement. Although different bargaining units may work for the same employer, they often have distinct duties, priorities and contractual concerns that justify independent representation and bargaining.

Economic disparities arise when one group of unionized employees receives lower wages, health benefits, pension benefits, or other forms of compensation than another group employed by the same employer. Such disparities become more difficult to justify when employees perform substantially similar work requiring comparable skill, effort and responsibility under similar working conditions.

Wages, hours, health, pension benefits and other terms and conditions of employment are generally considered mandatory subjects of bargaining. The established test is whether a subject has a significant impact on employees’ wages, hours, working conditions or otherwise affects the employee-employer relationship. When a matter falls within this category, both the employer and the union are obligated to negotiate in good faith.

A me-too-clause may undermine that process when it effectively predetermines the outcome of negotiations or limits a union’s ability to bargain independently over mandatory subjects. If a bargain representative is unable to negotiate economic benefits because those benefits are tied to another agreement, the bargaining process may become more form than substance.