Illinois Compiled Statutes
115 ILCS 5/1 (2026)
Policy
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(115 ILCS 5/1)
(from Ch. 48, par. 1701)
Sec. 1.
Policy.
It is the public policy of this State and the purpose
of this Act to promote orderly and constructive relationships between all
educational employees and their employers. Unresolved disputes between the
educational employees and their employers are injurious to the public, and
the General Assembly is therefore aware that adequate means must be established
for minimizing them and providing for their resolution.
It is the purpose of this Act to regulate labor relations between
educational employers and educational employees, including the designation
of educational employee representatives, negotiation of wages, hours and
other conditions of employment and resolution of disputes arising under
collective bargaining agreements. The General Assembly recognizes that
substantial differences exist between educational employees and other
public employees as a result of the uniqueness of the educational work
calendar and educational work duties and the traditional and historical
patterns of collective bargaining between educational employers and
educational employees and that such differences demand statutory regulation
of collective bargaining between educational employers and educational
employees in a manner that recognizes these differences. Recognizing that
harmonious relationships are required between educational employees and
their employers, the General Assembly has determined that the overall policy
may best be accomplished by (a) granting to educational employees the right
to organize and choose freely their representatives; (b) requiring educational
employers to negotiate and bargain with employee organizations representing
educational employees and to enter into written agreements evidencing the
result of such bargaining; and (c) establishing procedures to provide for
the protection of the rights of the educational employee, the educational
employer and the public.
(Source: P.A. 83-1014.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 692 N.E.2d 295 (Ill. 1998).
City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 692 N.E.2d 295 (Ill. 1998). “Although the three-pronged test set forth in Central City arose in the context of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (115 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 1994)), we find that this test applies in cases, such as this, arising under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.”
W. Illinois Univ. v. Illinois Educ. Labor Relations Bd., 2021 IL 126082 (Ill. 2021). “115 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2016). Among other things, the Act requires that public education employers and employees collectively bargain, reduce their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to writing, and arbitrate disputes that arise under the agreement.”
Bd. of Trs. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 862 N.E.2d 944 (Ill. 2007). “Labor relations between the latter two groups are governed by the Educational Act (115 ILCS 5/1 (West 2000)). "[P]eace officers employed by a State university" are specifically excluded from coverage by the Educational Act (115 ILCS 5/2(b) (West 2000)), however, and are deemed…”
Speed Dist. 802 v. Warning, 950 N.E.2d 1069 (Ill. 2011). “" 115 ILCS 5/1 (West 2004). Section 10 of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (IELRA) mandated that the District and the Union "confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, and to execute a written contract…”
Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Illinois v. Illinois Educ. Labor Relations Bd., 653 N.E.2d 882 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “The Union further alleged that the University failed and refused to bargain collectively and that it had been engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (the Act) (115 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 1992)). After an…”
Ehlers v. Jackson Cnty. Sheriff's Merit Comm'n, 697 N.E.2d 717 (Ill. 1998). “86-CA-0090-C (IELRB December 1, 1987) (interpreting the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (115 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 1992))). Sheriff Kilquist contends that the appellate court erred in relying on Weingarten and Morgan to set aside Ehlers' discharge.”
Chicago Teachers Union v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 787 N.E.2d 224 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “5(a)(4) of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (115 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2000)) (the Act).”
Mt. Vernon Educ. Ass'n v. Illinois Educ. Labor Relations Bd., 663 N.E.2d 1067 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “” 115 ILCS 5/1 (West 1992). Conversely, the Board found zipper clauses with broad language expressly waiving bargaining on matters unforeseen or unknown by either party at the time of the contract to be a permissive subject of bargaining.”
Cook Cnty. State's Attorney v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 684 N.E.2d 970 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “" 115 ILCS 5/1 (1992). This case is not an educational labor dispute.”
Barrington Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 220 v. Special Educ. Dist., 615 N.E.2d 1153 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993). “SEDOL asserted that plaintiff and SEDOL were educational employers and the Union was the exclusive representative of the teachers employed by SEDOL, within the meaning of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (Act) (115 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 1992)). SEDOL reasoned that…”
Dep't of Cent. Mgmt. Serv. v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, 699 N.E.2d 594 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “The Labor Relations Act, together with the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (Educational Act) (115 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 1994)), constitutes an “attempt to provide ‘a comprehensive regulatory scheme for public sector [collective] bargaining in Illinois.”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees v. Schwartz, 797 N.E.2d 1087 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “(now 115 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2002))) divests the circuit courts of jurisdiction to vacate or enforce arbitration awards in the context of public education labor disputes.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|