makes clear that all class members will be bound by any final arbitration award. Moreover, Cooper agreed to the order certifying the class under Rule 23(b). Therefore, our concern here is not for Cooper, but rather that the Retirees and Survivors will be bound by an unfavorable arbitration decision to which they never consented. As the Seventh Circuit stated in Rossetto, “[a] union’s power to negotiate with management derives from the fact that the union is the exclusive bargaining representative of a group of people.” Rossetto, 128 F.3d at 539. Because the Union is not the exclusive bargaining representative of the Retirees and Survivors, see Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers, Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 172, 92 S.Ct. 383, 30 L.Ed.2d 341 (1971) (<HOLDING>), any claims, statutory or otherwise, belong to
holding that the terms and conditions placed on applicants are not subjects of mandatory bargaining holding that probation department employees are not county employees holding that a city cannot be required to enter into collective bargaining sessions with an association of its employees holding retirees are not employees within the bargaining unit holding that where the bargaining unit remains unchanged and a majority of the employees hired by the new employer are represented by a recently certified bargaining agent the successor employer must bargain with the incumbent union