## Facts

- The Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) had a statutory duty to provide medical care to inmates and could satisfy that duty through private contracts.
- DOC contracted through competitive bidding with Wexford Health Sources, Inc. to provide inmate medical services at multiple DOC facilities.
- The DOC–Wexford contracts designated Wexford as an independent contractor and stated Wexford and its employees were not DOC agents.
- Wexford assumed responsibility for its employees’ acts and agreed to indemnify DOC for claims arising from negligence or misconduct.
- AFSCME was the exclusive bargaining representative for Wexford’s bargaining-unit employees under federal private-sector labor law procedures.
- AFSCME filed (1) a petition seeking state certification to represent Wexford medical employees as public employees and (2) an unfair labor practice charge alleging the State/DOC acted as a joint employer.
- The Illinois State Labor Relations Board (State Panel) dismissed both filings for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the State/DOC was not an “employer” of the Wexford employees under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (IPLRA).
- The appellate court reversed, finding the State a joint employer; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether DOC/the State was an “employer” or joint employer of Wexford’s medical employees under the IPLRA, giving the Labor Relations Board jurisdiction over AFSCME’s certification petition and unfair labor practice charge.
2. Whether DOC’s contract oversight and statutory duty to ensure adequate inmate medical care amounted to direct control over essential terms and conditions of the contractor employees’ employment.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the Labor Relations Board’s dismissal.
- The court held DOC/the State was not an employer or joint employer of Wexford’s medical employees under the IPLRA.
- The court gave substantial weight to the Board’s specialized judgment and found its determination not clearly erroneous.
- Contract terms identifying Wexford as an independent contractor and disclaiming agency supported the conclusion that Wexford, not the State, employed the medical staff.
- Evidence showed Wexford controlled hiring, firing, discipline, wages, benefits, staffing, and day-to-day supervision; DOC’s role was limited to monitoring performance and enforcing contractual standards.

## Legal Principles

- A public entity does not become an “employer” or joint employer under the IPLRA merely by contracting for services to meet statutory obligations and monitoring contractual performance.
- Joint-employer status under the IPLRA requires direct and significant control over essential employment terms and conditions (including hiring, firing, discipline, wages/benefits, and supervision), not ordinary contract administration.
- Detailed performance standards and compliance monitoring, standing alone, are consistent with a purchaser-of-services relationship rather than an employment relationship.
- An administrative agency’s interpretation and application of the statute it administers is entitled to substantial deference and will be overturned only if clearly erroneous or contrary to legislative intent.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that DOC’s oversight of contracted inmate medical services did not amount to the direct control over core employment matters required for joint-employer status under the IPLRA, so the Labor Relations Board properly dismissed AFSCME’s certification petition and unfair labor practice charge for lack of jurisdiction.


Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., Council 31 v. Ill. State Labor Rels. Bd., 216 Ill. 2d 569, 839 N.E.2d 479 (Ill. 2005)