ILCS » Chapter 5 · Act 315
Illinois Compiled Statutes

5 ILCS 315/15.1 (2026)

Precedents established by other labor boards

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(5 ILCS 315/15.1) (from Ch. 48, par. 1615.1)
    Sec. 15.1. Precedents established by other labor boards. Unless contradicted by administrative precedent previously established by the State Panel, all final decisions in representation and unfair labor practice cases decided by the Local Panel and the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board created under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act which have not been reversed by subsequent court rulings, shall be considered, but need not be followed by the State Panel.
    Unless contradicted by administrative precedent previously established by the Local Panel, all final decisions in representation and unfair labor practice cases decided by the State Panel and the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board which have not been reversed by subsequent court rulings, shall be considered, but need not be followed by the Local Panel.
(Source: P.A. 91-798, eff. 7-9-00.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1998–2006 · leading case: Cessna v. City of Danville, 693 N.E.2d 1264 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cessna v. City of Danville, 693 N.E.2d 1264 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “1 of the Act (5 ILCS 315/15.1 (West 1994)) directs the Board, in final decisions in representation and unfair labor practice cases, to consider final decisions of the IELRB.”
State v. State, 364 Ill. App. 3d 1028 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “Were we to accept the Board’s argument that unit-clarification petitions may only be filed under the four limited circumstances previously stated, an employer would be barred from removing a confidential employee from a bargaining unit regardless of what information that…”
City of Tuscola v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 732 N.E.2d 784 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “1 (West 1998)), directing the Public Labor Board to consider the decisions of other labor boards as persuasive authority or precedent or both, suggests that the legislature intended uniform interpretation of these two acts. It logically follows that courts too should look to…”
State v. State (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “Were we to accept the Board's argument that unit- clarification petitions may only be filed under the four limited circumstances previously stated, an employer would be barred from removing a confidential employee from a bargaining unit regard- less of what information that…”
Cessna v. City of Danville (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “1 of the Act (5 ILCS 315/15.1 (West 1994)) directs the Board, in final decisions in representation and unfair labor practice cases, to consider final decisions of the IELRB.”
City of Tuscola v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd. (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “It logically follows that courts too should look to decisions under either act when faced with a question of statutory interpretation.”
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.