Illinois Compiled Statutes
820 ILCS 405/604 (2026)
Labor dispute
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(820 ILCS 405/604)
(from Ch. 48, par. 434)
Sec. 604.
Labor dispute.
An individual shall be ineligible for benefits for any week with respect
to which it is found that his total or partial unemployment is due to a
stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the factory,
establishment, or other premises at which he is or was last employed.
The term "labor dispute" does not include an individual's
refusal to work because of his employer's failure to pay
accrued earned wages within 10 working days from the date due, or to pay
any other uncontested accrued obligation arising out of his employment
within 10 working days from the date due.
For the purpose of disqualification under this Section the term "labor
dispute" does not include a lockout by an employer, and no individual shall
be denied benefits by reason of a lockout, provided that no individual shall be
eligible for benefits during a lockout who is ineligible for benefits under
another Section of this Act, and provided further that no individual locked out
by an employer shall be eligible for benefits for any week during
which (1) the
recognized or certified collective bargaining representative of the locked
out employees refuses to meet under reasonable conditions with the employer
to discuss the issues giving rise to the lockout or (2) there
is a final adjudication under the National Labor Relations Act that during
the period of the lockout the recognized or certified collective bargaining representative of
the locked-out employees has refused to bargain in good faith with the
employer over issues giving rise to the lockout, or (3) the
lockout has resulted as a direct consequence of a violation by the recognized
or certified collective bargaining representative of the locked out employees
of the provisions of an existing collective bargaining
agreement. An individual's total or partial unemployment resulting from any
reduction in operations or reduction of force or layoff of employees by an
employer made in the course of or in anticipation of collective bargaining
negotiations between a labor organization and such employer, is not due to
a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute until the date
of actual commencement of a strike or lockout.
This Section shall not apply if it is shown that (A) the individual is
not participating in or financing or directly interested in the labor
dispute which caused the stoppage of work and (B) he does not belong to a
grade or class of workers of which immediately before the commencement of
the stoppage there were members employed at the premises at which the
stoppage occurs, any of whom are participating in or financing or directly
interested in the dispute; provided, that a lockout by the employer or an
individual's failure to cross a picket line at such factory, establishment,
or other premises shall not, in itself, be deemed to be participation by
him in the labor dispute. If in any case, separate branches
of work which are commonly conducted as separate businesses in separate
premises are conducted in separate departments of the same premises, each
such department shall, for the purpose of this Section, be deemed to be a
separate factory, establishment, or other premises.
Whenever any claim involves the provisions of this Section, the claims
adjudicator referred to in Section 702 shall make a separate determination
as to the eligibility or ineligibility of the claimant with respect to the
provisions of this Section. This separate determination may be appealed to
the Director in the manner prescribed by Section 800.
(Source: P.A. 93-1088, eff. 1-1-06.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2021 · leading case: Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Aldridge, 688 N.E.2d 90 (Ill. 1997).
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Aldridge, 688 N.E.2d 90 (Ill. 1997). “Chief Justice FREEMAN delivered the opinion of the court: Section 604 of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act disqualifies an employee from receiving unemployment benefits where the employee is voluntarily unemployed because of a labor strike at the place where he or she was…”
Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 148 v. Illinois Dep't of Emp. Sec., 828 N.E.2d 1104 (Ill. 2005). “The union members would not be ineligible for benefits because section 604 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (820 ILCS 405/604 (West 1992)) only applies where the work stoppage is due to a labor dispute.”
Golab v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 666 N.E.2d 347 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “Hohimer, Lonnie Scott, Robert Stults, and John Zibutis, ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits, pursuant to section 604 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (820 ILCS 405/ 604 (West 1992)). In April 1994, plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking administrative…”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Doherty, 701 N.E.2d 1163 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “The referee held that he had the authority to consider Caterpillar’s appeal and that section 604 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (820 ILCS 405/604 (West 1992)), which disqualifies participants in a labor dispute from receiving benefits, did not apply.”
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Doherty, 711 N.E.2d 799 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “" 820 ILCS 405/604 (West 1994). Subsequent to the September 6, 1994, determination, the Department received information that a large number of striking workers were advised by Bridgestone that they had been permanently replaced.”
520 South Michigan Avenue Assocs. v. Deptartment of Emp. Sec., 935 N.E.2d 612 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “” 820 ILCS 405/604 (West 2008). In a supplemental decision, the Director found that the “stoppage of work” ended July 5, 2003, because Congress Plaza had resumed substantially normal operations.”
Int'l Union of Operating Engineers v. Dep't of Emp. Sec. Opinion corrected 01/29/04, 802 N.E.2d 289 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Hayes reasoned that if the NLRB found that CIPS’s lockout of the union members violated the NLRA, section 604 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (820 ILCS 405/604 (West 1992)) would be inapplicable because the NLRA violation would have to be found to be the cause of the work…”
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Doherty, 672 N.E.2d 379 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “820 ILCS 405/604 (West 1994). On administrative review, the circuit court of Macon County reversed the Director’s decision and remanded with directions.”
Chicago Transit Auth. v. Didrickson, 659 N.E.2d 28 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “Those exemptions and disqualifications include, inter alla, situations where the claimant is an independent contractor (820 ILCS 405/212 (West 1994)), where the claimant’s principal occupation is that of a student (820 ILCS 405/500(0(4) (West 1994)), where the claimant is…”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 304 Ill. App. 3d 492 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “" 820 ILCS 405/604 (West 1996). At the outset, four of the defendants claim that Caterpillar has waived any argument regarding section 604 eligibility because the letters of appeal they received failed to raise the adjudicator's decision as to section 604 as an issue.”
Int'l Union v. DEPT. OF EMP. SEC., 828 N.E.2d 1104 (Ill. 2005). “The union members would not be ineligible for benefits because section 604 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (820 ILCS 405/604 (West 1992)) only applies where the work stoppage is due to a labor dispute.”
Bridgestone/Firestone v. Aldridge (Ill. 1997). “” 820 ILCS 405/604 (West 1994). In Dienes v.”
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.
|