Different 401k for groups of employees

[bort]

I'm a little new to 401k, and my company has encountered a situation in that a certain group of employees have decided to unionize. Currently, every employee in the company has the same 401k structure (elective deferral, company match, safe harbor, profit sharing). Should the unionization go through, leadership will likely not want to give them any more than they have to. If they are to be under a different structure (say the company doesn't want to give them safe harbor and profit sharing), can this be done and would it require a separate plan or just a change to the plan document?

Thanks

[ETA Consulting LLC]

The short answer would be that they'll likely set up a new plan to cover the union employees.  There are some caveats with the union issue (e.g. employees covered under a collective bargaining agreement between the Employer and the 'Union' representative) that would determine if there is a mandatory disaggregation of the Union employees.

Good Luck!

[My 2 cents]

My understanding (not based on either active involvement with servicing 401(k) plans or  collective bargaining matters) is that if they do unionize, every aspect of the conditions of employment (such as anything to do with the 401(k) plan) becomes subject to collective bargaining.  That is to say, any changes to the 401(k) plan with respect to them (and maybe even whether to stay or to go to a new plan) must be the result of collective bargaining.  The employer essentially loses the ability to make unilateral decisions with respect to the employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

[CuseFan]

if retirement benefits are the subject of good faith bargaining then that group is considered a separate plan for purposes of applying tests for coverage and nondiscrimination. you can continue under one plan (document, investment lineup, etc.) with different benefit structures but your document must be able to accommodate and be properly completed/amended. it may be simpler to set up a separate plan - and could be more expensive because now you have two sets of accounting, asset pools/investment expenses, 5500's etc., but there could also be savings if the plan had over 100 participants and needed an annual audit but then splits into two plans under 100 participants with no audit requirement.