Well, as they responded to a comment saying that most would have the benefits under federal law, saying it depends on the contract implies that those benefits are dependent on contracts and not federal law, not that you can go above and beyond federal law with a contract (which should be obvious to most).
Their comment, while not outwardly contradictory, was not outwardly complementary either. So really, their point was just very poorly made if that indeed was what they were trying to convey.
Perhaps he was filling the tub so that he could mash them all at once.