The Appellate Court is normally a court of review. But in some limited instances, the law requires parties to go straight to the Appellate Court, skipping the Circuit Court altogether. See Ill. Const. art. VI, § 6 (“The Appellate Court may exercise original jurisdiction when necessary to the complete determination of any case on review.”). One of those circumstances arises in the public labor relations context. When a public employer commits an unfair labor practice, and the Illinois Labor Relations Board (ILRB) issues a final order, the Appellate Court has original jurisdiction to enforce that order if any party violates it. 5 ILCS 315/11 (f)(g).

For context, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) governs labor relations between workers and private employers. 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. But that law does not cover government entities. 29 U.S.C. § 152 (excluding government entities from the NLRA’s protections). Relations between employees and local government entities in Illinois are governed by Illinois’s Public Labor Relations Act. 5 ILCS 315/1, et seq. So when a municipality commits an unfair labor practice, employees’ remedies lie with the Illinois Labor Relations Board. 5 ILCS 315/5. Unfair labor practices include refusing to collectively bargain, discriminating in hiring and retention to discourage participation in a labor organization, and preventing employees from participation in a labor organization, etc. 5 ILCS 315/10 (a).

Recently, the Fifth District of the Appellate Court for the Fifth District exercised its jurisdiction to compel the Village of Washington Park to comply with a final order of the ILRB. People ex. rel. ILRB v. Village of Washington Park, No. 5-25-0499. Washington Park, an impoverished town in Southern Illinois, was found to have committed unfair labor practices by failing to abide by its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and by retaliating against city employees who participated in union activities. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local #50, Ill. Lab. Rel’s. Bd., No. S-CA-22-005-C (Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Compliance Decision and Order). The ILRB ordered the Village to pay contributions to employee health insurance plans on which it had reneged, pay backpay owed to terminated employees, bargain in good faith with the Teamsters, and take other actions required by the CBA and the law. Id.

The Village did not comply. Although the Village agreed to bargain with the Teamsters, it did not fulfill its financial obligations. Id. In response, the Teamsters filed a petition for enforcement with the ILRB, which, in turn, filed a petition for enforcement with the Appellate Court.

The ILRB lacks inherent enforcement authority—like all administrative agencies—and cannot punish noncompliance with contempt. 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 189 (2024). That is where the Appellate Court comes in. The ILRB’s petition for enforcement, filed by the Attorney General, essentially asks the Appellate Court to use its inherent contempt powers to compel the Village to comply.

The Appellate Court heard oral argument, in which the Village maintained its position that it was unable to pay the amounts ordered by the ILRB, but essentially conceded that an order enforcing compliance was proper under the law.

The Appellate Court agreed with the parties that an order was appropriate and issued an order requiring the parties to negotiate amongst themselves and submit a proposed joint order of enforcement. People ex. rel. ILRB v. Village of Washington Park, No. 5-25-0499.

This type of order is rare, and, at oral argument, the justices expressed some uncertainty about the Appellate Court’s role. Indeed, only three such orders have been entered since 1990. See Cnty. of DeKalb v. Ill. State Lab. Rel. Bd., No. 2-90-130; People ex rel. I.S.L.R.B. v. Cnty. of Macon, 3-93-0333; People ex rel. ILRB v. Harvey Park Dist., No. 1-15-0816. And given the Village’s arguments about its inability to pay, the Court was hesitant to enter an order that would require it to hear evidence. But the Court’s resolution was fair; it promoted respect for the ILRB’s orders and accommodated a struggling town.

Author: Shmuel Wyckoff is a 3L student at the Chicago-Kent College of Law with an interest in appellate practice.