The Illinois FOP Labor Council

The Labor Council provides full union representation: negotiating and enforcing contracts, improving salaries, working conditions, and benefits for law enforcement professionals throughout Illinois. Our members are protected 24 hours a day by a staff of full-time, in-house attorneys and field representatives who have a proven track record of winning.

24 Hour Critical Incident Hotline: 877-IFOP-911

Legislative Update

By IL FOP Labor Council, Staff - Tuesday, February 13, 2018

From: Leinenweber, Baroni and Daffada

The General Assembly cancelled legislative days last week after an unprecedented lack of work being done.  So far, for the year, the House has filed a fraction of the number of bills that would historically have been filed, 515, and the Senate dropped the bar even further by filing 393 bills.  This means that filings for the year are at about 30% of what would be expected.  The Legislative Reference Bureau, the agency responsible for issuing a bar code for all legislation, indicated that requests were down about 20% from years past.  Ultimately, this means that the upcoming week will see a higher bill file rate than has recently been recorded; as many as 2000 bills could be filed this week.

A quick perusal of the bills that have been filed suggest the General Assembly’s top priorities this year are 1.  Protecting dogs, 2. Not spending money the state doesn’t have and 3. Further controlling who, when and what can carry firearms.  These are all political issues, and a desire for headlines seem to be dominating the bill filings so far.  There are almost 50 seats impacted by the primary, so some of the political rhetoric will die down after the primary on March 20, but much of it will continue into the General Election with what will be record breaking spending on political advertisements this summer and fall.

We have had meetings with legislators this week and are scheduled for many more in the upcoming week.  So far topics of discussions have included police professionalism, pension changes, revenue issues for municipalities and racial profiling. We will see bills on these issues filed this week.  In addition, we will file bills including a bill to decrease obstacles to mental health services, eliminate several pension issues and clarify definitions of peace officer for purposes LEOSA. Also, there are several bills active now, including two scheduled for Committee this week.

Legislation of Interest:

Click here for more details...

Important Notice

By IL FOP Labor Council, Staff - Thursday, January 4, 2018

Recently, the Illinois Appellate Court in Percy Taylor v. Thomas Dart, et al., found that the Sheriff’s Merit Board was “illegally constituted” between May 5, 2011 and   November 2015.  Therefore, the Appellate Court ruled that the termination of Percy Taylor was void, and his case was remanded to the Board for another hearing. Percy Taylor was also entitled to back pay for the time that he was off work.


Based on this case, the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council (“Labor Council”) believes that ANY action taken by the Board during the relevant time period, May 5, 2011, to November 2015, was void.  Anyone who was disciplined or terminated by the Board during that time period may be entitled to backpay, reinstatement and/or a new hearing.


The Labor Council has heard from some members who are impacted by the Percy Taylor case.  However, since the Labor Council did not represent the membership until August 29, 2014, we are concerned that there are members or former members who were disciplined or terminated by the improperly constituted Board that have not contacted us.


We are posting this notice for any member or former member who was issued discipline of more than 29 days, up to including termination, by the Merit Board between May 5, 2011, and November 2015. If this applies to you or anyone you know, please contact Attorney Daniel Mahoney at the Labor Council by calling 708-784-1010.


By John Roche, Attorney - Wednesday, October 18, 2017

            The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case that could have broad and negative implications for public sector unions. The Court agreed to hear Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, (“AFSCME”) No 16-1466 to determine whether public sector unions may require employees who are not members to help pay for the cost of collective bargaining. 

            This issue has been pursued and financed by highly organized and well-funded anti-union groups who seek to deprive public sector unions of their ability to finance the cost of collective bargaining by denying unions the ability to collect the fair share of the costs of representing the bargaining unit members.

            The Janus case comes out of Illinois and was originally filed by Governor Bruce Rauner. Governor Rauner filed the suit against all of the public sector unions in Illinois, including the IFOP Labor Council. Governor Rauner was quickly dismissed from the case because he lacked standing to bring the matter. A replacement plaintiff was quickly found. Mark Janus, a State of Illinois employee who works in an AFSCME bargaining unit, stepped in as the new plaintiff. Janus argues, as originally argued by Governor Rauner, that requiring him to pay anything for the costs of collective bargaining violates his First Amendment right. 

            Under the law, unions must represent all employees in the bargaining unit whether or not those employees are union members. Under Illinois law (and the laws of many States that permit public sector bargaining), unions are permitted to charge non-member bargaining unit employees the cost of the “fair share” of collective bargaining, which is less than the amount of full union dues. Such requirements are designed to protect union members from “free riders,” i.e., those employees who would let their fellow employees who are union members pay the full amount of the costs of collective bargaining while the non-union members pay nothing. In addition to rights under Illinois law, bargaining union members who are not union members are required to pay their “fair share” based on the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. This has been the law of the land since 1977. In recent years, some conservative Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court implied a willingness to overturn Abood. A case similar to Janus, but out of California, had worked its way to the Court in 2015 and the Court appeared evenly split on whether to overturn Abood, with conservative Justice Scalia being the deciding vote. Based on his questioning during oral argument, it was widely believed that he would vote to overturn Abood. Justice Scalia suddenly passed away before he could vote and the Court was evenly split 4 to 4 on the issue. Abood was, therefore, not overturned. With the Court now fully constituted with the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, the full court will take up the Janus case in the coming year.

            Should Abood be overturned, public sector unions with low union membership will be financially crushed.  All public sector unions will be severely challenged at a time when well organized, highly funded groups continue their onslaught on employee rights. If so, public sector employees must redouble their resolve to unite and fight for their rights.

New Law Requires Drug/Alcohol Testing When Officers Are Involved In Shootings

By Gary Bailey, Attorney - Monday, September 11, 2017

On August 25, 2017, the "Police and Community Relations Improvement Act" went into effect. Found at 50 ILCS 727/1-25, the statute requires law enforcement agencies to adopt a written policy regarding drug and alcohol testing following an officer-involved shooting. The policy must require law enforcement officers who discharge their firearm causing injury or death to a person (during the performance of their duties or in the line of duty) to be tested as soon as practicable after the shooting but no later than the end of their shift or tour of duty.

As with any new law, it is subject to interpretation. The Illinois FOP Labor Council has mailed out to employers of law enforcement officers we represent demands to bargain over the impact of this law as we determine if new language is necessary in collective bargaining agreements to address this new law and its requirements. Many current Labor Council contracts have drug/alcohol testing provisions so it may be only minor adjustments are needed in some agreements.

If you have questions regarding this new law, please contact your Labor Council representative.