ILCS » Chapter 5 · Act 315
Illinois Compiled Statutes

5 ILCS 315/20 (2026)

Prohibitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(5 ILCS 315/20) (from Ch. 48, par. 1620)
    Sec. 20. Prohibitions.
    (a) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require an individual employee to render labor or service without his consent, nor shall anything in this Act be construed to make the quitting of his labor by an individual employee an illegal act; nor shall any court issue any process to compel the performance by an individual employee of such labor or service, without his consent; nor shall the quitting of labor by an employee or employees in good faith because of abnormally dangerous conditions for work at the place of employment of such employee be deemed a strike under this Act.
    (b) This Act shall not be applicable to units of local government employing less than 5 employees at the time the Petition for Certification or Representation is filed with the Board. This prohibition shall not apply to bargaining units in existence on the effective date of this Act and units of local government employing more than 5 employees where the total number of employees falls below 5 after the Board has certified a bargaining unit.
(Source: P.A. 93-442, eff. 1-1-04; 93-1080, eff. 6-1-05; 94-67, eff. 1-1-06.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1997–2000 · leading case: Vill. of Winfield v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 678 N.E.2d 1041 (Ill. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vill. of Winfield v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 678 N.E.2d 1041 (Ill. 1997). · cites it 3× “The Village contended that the Board did not have jurisdiction to consider the union’s representation petition, pursuant to section 20(b) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (the Act) (5 ILCS 315/20(b) (West 1992)), because the Village employs fewer than 35 employees.”
City of Tuscola v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 732 N.E.2d 784 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “5 ILCS 315/20(b) (West 1998). Later that month, an administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing on the City’s motion to determine whether various City employees were “employees” or “short-term employees” under the Public Labor Act (5 ILCS 315/3(n), (q) (West 1998)).”
Nw. Mosquito Abatement Dist. v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 708 N.E.2d 548 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “However, many different types of public employees are excluded from the Act because of their unique status.”
Metro. All. of Police v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 701 N.E.2d 825 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “” 5 ILCS 315/20(b) (West 1996). The Board asserts that this section functions as an absolute bar to the Act’s application to governmental units that employ less than 35 employees.”
Vill. of Winfield v. ISLRB (Ill. 1997). · cites it 3× “The Village contended that the Board did not have jurisdiction to consider the union's representation petition, pursuant to section 20(b) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (the Act) (5 ILCS 315/20(b) (West 1992)), because the Village employs fewer than 35 employees.”
City of Tuscola v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd. (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “5 ILCS 315/20(b) (West 1998). Later that month, an administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing on the City's motion to determine whether various City employees were "employees" or "short-term employees" under the Public Labor Act (5 ILCS 315/3(n), (q) (West 1998)).”
Nw. Mosquito Abatement Dist. v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd. (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “However, many different types of public employees are excluded from the Act because of their unique status. For example, managerial employees, confidential employees, supervisors and short-term employees are all excluded.”
— 5 ILCS 315/20(b) — 7 cases
Vill. of Winfield v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 678 N.E.2d 1041 (Ill. 1997). “The Village contended that the Board did not have jurisdiction to consider the union’s representation petition, pursuant to section 20(b) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (the Act) (5 ILCS 315/20(b) (West 1992)), because the Village employs fewer than 35 employees.”
City of Tuscola v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 732 N.E.2d 784 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “5 ILCS 315/20(b) (West 1998). Later that month, an administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing on the City’s motion to determine whether various City employees were “employees” or “short-term employees” under the Public Labor Act (5 ILCS 315/3(n), (q) (West 1998)).”
Nw. Mosquito Abatement Dist. v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 708 N.E.2d 548 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “However, many different types of public employees are excluded from the Act because of their unique status.”
Metro. All. of Police v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 701 N.E.2d 825 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “” 5 ILCS 315/20(b) (West 1996). The Board asserts that this section functions as an absolute bar to the Act’s application to governmental units that employ less than 35 employees.”
Vill. of Winfield v. ISLRB (Ill. 1997). “The Village contended that the Board did not have jurisdiction to consider the union's representation petition, pursuant to section 20(b) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (the Act) (5 ILCS 315/20(b) (West 1992)), because the Village employs fewer than 35 employees.”
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.