Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 93.

**Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. AFSCME Case Summary** This case was about a dispute over who pays for health insurance costs for Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) employees. The union (AFSCME Council 93) had negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that required the MWRA to pay a larger share of workers' health insurance premiums. However, the Massachusetts legislature had passed a law setting specific ratios for how much state employees must contribute toward their health insurance costs. The court decided in favor of the union, ruling that the legislature's law about health insurance contribution ratios applies to MWRA employees. This meant the union could not enforce the part of their contract that would have required the employer to pay more for health insurance than what state law allowed. **Why this matters for workers:** This ruling shows that even when unions successfully negotiate better benefits in a contract, state laws can sometimes override those negotiated terms. Public sector employees should understand that their benefits may be subject to legislative changes, regardless of what their union contracts say. It demonstrates the importance of both collective bargaining and political advocacy to protect worker benefits.