The union that represents ISU’s building services, grounds, and food workers, AFSCME Local 1110, filed the complaint after allegedly witnessing the university hire contractors to replace striking employees for almost two weeks. This practice is classified as a Class A misdemeanor under the Illinois Employment of Strikebreakers Act, which was passed in 2004. The law is clear: no one may knowingly hire a professional strikebreaker to replace an employee whose employment has been suspended due to a strike. According to the union, ISU engaged at least five businesses, including four cleaning firms, to carry out that task. AFSCME identified the contractors and urged the university to cease using them in a letter sent to the university on April 15, the day both parties met with a federal mediator and were unable to come to an agreement. The university did not reply.

After workers provided the necessary 10-day notice, the strike actually started on April 8. AFSCME members had been working without a contract for nine months, starting on June 30, 2025. This information is often overlooked during the more dramatic stages of a labor dispute, but it is crucial when attempting to comprehend why 300 employees initially quit their jobs. According to the university, its final offer includes several pay raises and hourly rates that are comparable to those of comparable jobs in the neighborhood. That description is rejected by the union. The parties seem to be at a true impasse, and both statements can be made honestly by those who have access to the same data.

On the surface, the lawsuit’s legal theory is simple, but it becomes more complex when considering how strikes actually operate. The pressure that a strike is intended to create is greatly lessened when an employer can hire temporary contractors to handle the operational impact of a walkout, such as maintaining grounds, cleaning dorms, and operating dining halls. The complaint makes precisely this claim, claiming that the Strikebreakers Act exists specifically to maintain a balance of power in labor disputes and that governmental employers have more power in strikes if they can readily replace striking employees with temporary labor. To put it another way, the union is not merely claiming that a law was violated. It contends that breaking the law was a calculated tactic to prolong the strike without engaging in negotiations.

Chris Coplan, an ISU spokesperson, stated on Wednesday afternoon that the university has not received official court notification of the lawsuit and that it adheres to a state procurement procedure intended to guarantee legal compliance. The careful wording of that statement implies that the university thinks it has a legal defense, but it doesn’t say what that defense is. This is the second lawsuit related to the strike. Last week, ISU’s faculty union filed a separate unfair labor practice complaint, claiming that faculty members were asked to take on the responsibilities of the striking AFSCME employees, which is a different but related pressure point in a growing dispute.

Watching this play out gives me the impression that both sides have become more involved than they were three weeks ago, making a speedy resolution more difficult to envision. The university seems to think it can handle the strike’s operational effects indefinitely. The union seems to think the law provides it with a means of contesting that. A major escalation would be a Class A misdemeanor charge against the president of a public university. Judge Rebecca Foley’s interpretation of the Strikebreakers Act and whether either party determines that a negotiated settlement is preferable to witnessing the opposite result in court will determine whether that is where this ends up.

The post The Employment of Strikebreakers Act Lawsuit That Is Putting Illinois State University on the Wrong Side of the Law appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.