ILCS » Chapter 5 · Act 315
Illinois Compiled Statutes

5 ILCS 315/10 (2026)

Unfair labor practices

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(5 ILCS 315/10) (from Ch. 48, par. 1610)
    Sec. 10. Unfair labor practices.
    (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer or its agents:
        (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce public
    
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in this Act or to dominate or interfere with the formation, existence or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it; provided, an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay;
        (2) to discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of
    
employment or any term or condition of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in or other support for any labor organization. Nothing in this Act or any other law precludes a public employer from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of employment the payment of a fair share under paragraph (e) of Section 6;
        (3) to discharge or otherwise discriminate against a
    
public employee because he has signed or filed an affidavit, petition, or charge or provided any information or testimony under this Act;
        (4) to refuse to bargain collectively in good faith
    
with a labor organization which is the exclusive representative of public employees in an appropriate unit, including, but not limited to, the discussing of grievances with the exclusive representative;
        (5) to violate any of the rules and regulations
    
established by the Board with jurisdiction over them relating to the conduct of representation elections or the conduct affecting the representation elections;
        (6) to expend or cause the expenditure of public
    
funds to any external agent, individual, firm, agency, partnership, or association in any attempt to influence the outcome of representational elections held pursuant to Section 9 of this Act; provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit an employer's right to internally communicate with its employees as provided in subsection (c) of this Section, to be represented on any matter pertaining to unit determinations, unfair labor practice charges or pre-election conferences in any formal or informal proceeding before the Board, or to seek or obtain advice from legal counsel. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit an employer from expending or causing the expenditure of public funds on, or seeking or obtaining services or advice from, any organization, group, or association established by and including public or educational employers, whether covered by this Act, the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act or the public employment labor relations law of any other state or the federal government, provided that such services or advice are generally available to the membership of the organization, group or association, and are not offered solely in an attempt to influence the outcome of a particular representational election;
        (7) to refuse to reduce a collective bargaining
    
agreement to writing or to refuse to sign such agreement;
        (8) to interfere with, restrain, coerce, deter, or
    
discourage public employees or applicants to be public employees from: (i) becoming or remaining members of a labor organization; (ii) authorizing representation by a labor organization; or (iii) authorizing dues or fee deductions to a labor organization, nor shall the employer intentionally permit outside third parties to use its email or other communication systems to engage in that conduct. An employer's good faith implementation of a policy to block the use of its email or other communication systems for such purposes shall be a defense to an unfair labor practice;
        (9) to disclose to any person or entity information
    
set forth in subsection (c-5) of Section 6 of this Act that the employer knows or should know will be used to interfere with, restrain, coerce, deter, or discourage any public employee from: (i) becoming or remaining members of a labor organization, (ii) authorizing representation by a labor organization, or (iii) authorizing dues or fee deductions to a labor organization; or
        (10) to promise, threaten, or take any action: (i)
    
to permanently replace an employee who participates in a lawful strike as provided under Section 17; (ii) to discriminate against an employee who is working or has unconditionally offered to return to work for the employer because the employee supported or participated in such a lawful strike; or (iii) to lock out, suspend, or otherwise withhold employment from employees in order to influence the position of such employees or the representative of such employees in collective bargaining prior to a lawful strike.
    (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents:
        (1) to restrain or coerce public employees in the
    
exercise of the rights guaranteed in this Act, provided, (i) that this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein or the determination of fair share payments and (ii) that a labor organization or its agents shall commit an unfair labor practice under this paragraph in duty of fair representation cases only by intentional misconduct in representing employees under this Act;
        (2) to restrain or coerce a public employer in the
    
selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the settlement of grievances; or
        (3) to cause, or attempt to cause, an employer to
    
discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(2);
        (4) to refuse to bargain collectively in good faith
    
with a public employer, if it has been designated in accordance with the provisions of this Act as the exclusive representative of public employees in an appropriate unit;
        (5) to violate any of the rules and regulations
    
established by the boards with jurisdiction over them relating to the conduct of representation elections or the conduct affecting the representation elections;
        (6) to discriminate against any employee because he
    
has signed or filed an affidavit, petition, or charge or provided any information or testimony under this Act;
        (7) to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to
    
picket or cause to be picketed, any public employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization of the representative of its employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their collective bargaining representative, unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such employees:
            (A) where the employer has lawfully recognized in
        
accordance with this Act any labor organization and a question concerning representation may not appropriately be raised under Section 9 of this Act;
            (B) where within the preceding 12 months a valid
        
election under Section 9 of this Act has been conducted; or
            (C) where such picketing has been conducted
        
without a petition under Section 9 being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 30 days from the commencement of such picketing; provided that when such a petition has been filed the Board shall forthwith, without regard to the provisions of subsection (a) of Section 9 or the absence of a showing of a substantial interest on the part of the labor organization, direct an election in such unit as the Board finds to be appropriate and shall certify the results thereof; provided further, that nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to prohibit any picketing or other publicity for the purpose of truthfully advising the public that an employer does not employ members of, or have a contract with, a labor organization unless an effect of such picketing is to induce any individual employed by any other person in the course of his employment, not to pick up, deliver, or transport any goods or not to perform any services; or
        (8) to refuse to reduce a collective bargaining
    
agreement to writing or to refuse to sign such agreement.
    (c) The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
    (d) The employer shall not discourage public employees or applicants to be public employees from becoming or remaining union members or authorizing dues deductions, and shall not otherwise interfere with the relationship between employees and their exclusive bargaining representative. The employer shall refer all inquiries about union membership to the exclusive bargaining representative, except that the employer may communicate with employees regarding payroll processes and procedures. The employer will establish email policies in an effort to prohibit the use of its email system by outside sources.
(Source: P.A. 101-620, eff. 12-20-19; 102-596, eff. 8-27-21; 102-813, eff. 5-13-22.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 108 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 692 N.E.2d 295 (Ill. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 692 N.E.2d 295 (Ill. 1998). · cites it 6× “Justice BILANDIC delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal arises out of a decision and order of the Illinois State Labor Relations Board (Board), finding that the City of Belvidere (City) had committed an unfair labor practice under section 10(a)(4) of the Illinois Public…”
Bd. of Trs. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 862 N.E.2d 944 (Ill. 2007). · cites it 6× “The ALJ concluded that the FOP's parking proposals were mandatory subjects of bargaining and that the University's refusal to bargain in good faith was a violation of sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(4) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Act) (5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1), (a)(4)…”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees v. The Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2017 IL App (5th) 160046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 10× “We also note that, due to the parallels between section 10 of the Labor Relations Act ( 5 ILCS 315/10 (West 2014) ) and section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act ( 29 U.”
Cnty. of Cook v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd. Local Panel, 807 N.E.2d 613 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “On February 8, 2001, April 12, 2001, and May 1, 2001, respectively, the Teamsters, IUOE, and IFOP filed separate charges with the Local Panel of the ILRB, alleging that the County, Sheriff, and Forest Preserve District engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of…”
Cnty. of Cook v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2017 IL App (1st) 153015 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 5× “5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1) (West 2012). “[W]hen an employer has the duty to bargain, it need only provide notice of its willingness to bargain prior to the time at which its plans are fixed.”
State of Illinois Dep't of Cent. Mgmt. Servs. v. State of Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 869 N.E.2d 274 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 4× “it restrains an employee’s ability to exercise the rights guaranteed by the Act (5 ILCS 315/10(a)(l) (West 2002)) and when it “refuse[s] to bargain collectively in good faith with a labor organization which is the exclusive representative of public employees in an appropriate…”
Admin. Off. of the Illinois Courts v. State & Mun. Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union, Local 726, 657 N.E.2d 972 (Ill. 1995). · cites it 4× “(See 5 ILCS 315/10, 11 (West 1992).) Under those provisions, an employer may not, for example, refuse to bargain in good faith with the exclusive representative of an employee group or violate an order concerning a representation election.”
Zander v. Carlson, 2020 IL 125691 (Ill. 2020). · cites it 2× “If the union fails to fairly represent the interests of all members of a bargaining unit, it commits an unfair labor practice pursuant to section 10(b)(1) of the Act (5 ILCS 315/10(b)(1) (West 2018)). See Foley, 199 Ill.”
Forest Preserve Dist. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 861 N.E.2d 231 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 3× “Mandatory Subject of Bargaining The District next contends that its refusal to bargain with Local 726 regarding the December 2002 layoff did not constitute an unfair labor practice in violation of section 10 of the Act (5 ILCS 315/10 (West 2002)) where the burden on the District…”
Metro. All. of Police v. State of Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 803 N.E.2d 119 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 3× “4 However, in contrast to the judge, the Board found that Petitioner-Union’s refusal to arbitrate Cunigan’s grievance also violated section 10(b)(1) of the Act.”
Cnty. of Cook v. Illinois Local Labor Relations Bd., 707 N.E.2d 176 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 4× “Justice QUINN delivered the opinion of the court: This case is brought on appeal from an order of the Illinois Local Labor Relations Board (Labor Board) finding that petitioners, the County of Cook and the sheriff of Cook County, breached their duty to bargain in good faith in…”
Chester A. Lauth v. Daniel L. McCollum, 424 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2005). “5 ILCS 315/10(a)(2), 11(c); Administrative Office of Illinois Courts v.”
Show all 108 citing cases →
— 5 ILCS 315/10(B)(1) — 1 case
Murry v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees Nunc pro tunc Mar. 31, 1999 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(a) — 3 cases
Cessna v. City of Danville, 693 N.E.2d 1264 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
Howard v. Illinois Educ. Labor Relations Bd. (Ill. App. Ct. 2026).
Cessna v. City of Danville (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1) — 56 cases
Bd. of Trs. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 862 N.E.2d 944 (Ill. 2007). “The ALJ concluded that the FOP's parking proposals were mandatory subjects of bargaining and that the University's refusal to bargain in good faith was a violation of sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(4) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Act) (5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1), (a)(4)…”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees v. The Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2017 IL App (5th) 160046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “We also note that, due to the parallels between section 10 of the Labor Relations Act ( 5 ILCS 315/10 (West 2014) ) and section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act ( 29 U.”
City of Bloomington v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 871 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
Pace Suburban Bus Div. of the Reg'l Transp. Auth. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 942 N.E.2d 652 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241 v. Illinois Labor Relationws Bd., Local Panel, 2017 IL App (1st) 160999 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(a)(2) — 6 cases
Chester A. Lauth v. Daniel L. McCollum, 424 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2005). “5 ILCS 315/10(a)(2), 11(c); Administrative Office of Illinois Courts v.”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees v. The Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2017 IL App (5th) 160046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “We also note that, due to the parallels between section 10 of the Labor Relations Act ( 5 ILCS 315/10 (West 2014) ) and section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act ( 29 U.”
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241 v. Illinois Labor Relationws Bd., Local Panel, 2017 IL App (1st) 160999 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees v. The Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2017 IL App (5th) 160046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
Moehring v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., State Panel, 2013 IL App (2d) 120342 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(a)(4) — 35 cases
City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 692 N.E.2d 295 (Ill. 1998). “Justice BILANDIC delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal arises out of a decision and order of the Illinois State Labor Relations Board (Board), finding that the City of Belvidere (City) had committed an unfair labor practice under section 10(a)(4) of the Illinois Public…”
Cnty. of Cook v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd. Local Panel, 807 N.E.2d 613 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “On February 8, 2001, April 12, 2001, and May 1, 2001, respectively, the Teamsters, IUOE, and IFOP filed separate charges with the Local Panel of the ILRB, alleging that the County, Sheriff, and Forest Preserve District engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of…”
Bd. of Trs. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 862 N.E.2d 944 (Ill. 2007). “The ALJ concluded that the FOP's parking proposals were mandatory subjects of bargaining and that the University's refusal to bargain in good faith was a violation of sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(4) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Act) (5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1), (a)(4)…”
Cnty. of Cook v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2017 IL App (1st) 153015 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1) (West 2012). “[W]hen an employer has the duty to bargain, it need only provide notice of its willingness to bargain prior to the time at which its plans are fixed.”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 653 N.E.2d 1357 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(a)(4)(2000) — 1 case
O'Malley v. Vill. of Palos Park (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(a)(7) — 2 cases
Cnty. of Cook v. Licensed Practical Nurses Ass'n, 671 N.E.2d 787 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996).
Cnty. of Cook v. Lic. Pract. Nurses (Ill. App. Ct. 1996).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(a)(l) — 12 cases
Bd. of Trs. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 862 N.E.2d 944 (Ill. 2007). “The ALJ concluded that the FOP's parking proposals were mandatory subjects of bargaining and that the University's refusal to bargain in good faith was a violation of sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(4) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Act) (5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1), (a)(4)…”
State of Illinois Dep't of Cent. Mgmt. Servs. v. State of Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 869 N.E.2d 274 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “it restrains an employee’s ability to exercise the rights guaranteed by the Act (5 ILCS 315/10(a)(l) (West 2002)) and when it “refuse[s] to bargain collectively in good faith with a labor organization which is the exclusive representative of public employees in an appropriate…”
City of Bloomington v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 871 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
Forest Preserve Dist. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 861 N.E.2d 231 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “Mandatory Subject of Bargaining The District next contends that its refusal to bargain with Local 726 regarding the December 2002 layoff did not constitute an unfair labor practice in violation of section 10 of the Act (5 ILCS 315/10 (West 2002)) where the burden on the District…”
Grchan v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 734 N.E.2d 33 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(b) — 2 cases
Admin. Off. of the Illinois Courts v. State & Mun. Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union, Local 726, 657 N.E.2d 972 (Ill. 1995). “(See 5 ILCS 315/10, 11 (West 1992).) Under those provisions, an employer may not, for example, refuse to bargain in good faith with the exclusive representative of an employee group or violate an order concerning a representation election.”
Evans III v. Dart (N.D. Ill. 2021).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(b)(1) — 16 cases
Zander v. Carlson, 2020 IL 125691 (Ill. 2020). “If the union fails to fairly represent the interests of all members of a bargaining unit, it commits an unfair labor practice pursuant to section 10(b)(1) of the Act (5 ILCS 315/10(b)(1) (West 2018)). See Foley, 199 Ill.”
Chicago Jt. Bd. v. Labor Relations Bd., 951 N.E.2d 1164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011).
Michels v. The Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2012 IL App (4th) 110612 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012).
Metro. All. of Police v. State of Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 803 N.E.2d 119 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “4 However, in contrast to the judge, the Board found that Petitioner-Union’s refusal to arbitrate Cunigan’s grievance also violated section 10(b)(1) of the Act.”
Murry v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Local 1111, 712 N.E.2d 874 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(b)(1)(i) — 2 cases
Sweeney v. Madigan, 359 F. Supp. 3d 585 (E.D. Ill. 2019).
Sweeney v. Raoul (N.D. Ill. 2019).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(b)(1)(ii) — 2 cases
Zander v. Carlson, 2020 IL 125691 (Ill. 2020). “If the union fails to fairly represent the interests of all members of a bargaining unit, it commits an unfair labor practice pursuant to section 10(b)(1) of the Act (5 ILCS 315/10(b)(1) (West 2018)). See Foley, 199 Ill.”
Zander v. Carlson, 2020 IL 125691 (Ill. 2020).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(b)(4) — 7 cases
Chicago Transit Auth. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 830 N.E.2d 630 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
Chicago Transit Auth.. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 898 N.E.2d 176 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).
Vill. of Skokie v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 714 N.E.2d 87 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999).
Chicago Transit Auth. v. Labor Relations Bd. (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
Harvey Park Dist. v. Am. Fed'n of Professionals, 901 N.E.2d 901 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(b)(l) — 4 cases
Metro. All. of Police v. State of Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 803 N.E.2d 119 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “4 However, in contrast to the judge, the Board found that Petitioner-Union’s refusal to arbitrate Cunigan’s grievance also violated section 10(b)(1) of the Act.”
Carol MAJESKE, John Azara, Fred Barham, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LOCAL LODGE NO. 7, Defendants-Appellees, 94 F.3d 307 (7th Cir. 1996).
Cessna v. City of Danville, 693 N.E.2d 1264 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
Vill. of Skokie v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 714 N.E.2d 87 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999).
— 5 ILCS 315/10(c) — 4 cases
Dep't of Cent. Mgmt. Servs. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2018 IL App (4th) 160827 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees v. The Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2017 IL App (5th) 160046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “We also note that, due to the parallels between section 10 of the Labor Relations Act ( 5 ILCS 315/10 (West 2014) ) and section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act ( 29 U.”
Dep't of Cent. Mgmt. Servs. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., State Panel, 2018 IL App (4th) 160827 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees v. The Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2017 IL App (5th) 160046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
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.