Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

2  JANUS v. STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 

Opinion of the Court 

that Abood has countenanced for the past 41 years.  Abood 
is therefore overruled. 

I 

A 

Under  the  Illinois  Public  Labor  Relations  Act  (IPLRA), 
employees  of  the  State  and  its  political  subdivisions  are 
permitted  to  unionize. 
See  Ill.  Comp.  Stat.,  ch.  5, 
§315/6(a) (West 2016).  If a majority of the employees in a
bargaining  unit  vote  to  be  represented  by  a  union,  that 
union  is  designated  as  the  exclusive  representative  of  all
the  employees.  §§315/3(s)(1),  315/6(c),  315/9.    Employees
in the unit are not obligated to join the union selected by 
their co-workers, but whether they join or not, that union 
is  deemed  to  be  their  sole  permitted  representative.    See 
§§315/6(a), (c).

Once  a  union  is  so  designated,  it  is  vested  with  broad 
authority.  Only the union may negotiate with the employer
on  matters  relating  to  “pay,  wages,  hours[,]  and  other 
conditions  of  employment.”  §315/6(c).  And  this  authority 
extends to the negotiation of what the IPLRA calls “policy
matters,”  such  as  merit  pay,  the  size  of  the  work  force,
layoffs,  privatization,  promotion  methods,  and  non­
discrimination  policies.   §315/4;  see  §315/6(c);  see  gener-
ally,  e.g.,  Illinois  Dept.  of  Central  Management  Servs.  v. 
AFSCME, Council 31, No. S–CB–16–17 etc., 33 PERI ¶67 
(ILRB Dec. 13, 2016) (Board Decision). 

Designating  a  union  as  the  employees’  exclusive  repre­
sentative  substantially  restricts  the  rights  of  individual
employees.    Among  other  things,  this  designation  means 
that individual employees may not be represented by any 
agent other than the designated union; nor may individual 
their  employer.
employees  negotiate  directly  with 
§§315/6(c)–(d),  315/10(a)(4);  see  Matthews  v.  Chicago 
Transit  Authority,  2016  IL  117638,  51  N. E. 3d  753,  782; 
accord, Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U. S. 678,