The National Labor Relations Act has triumphed over tribal sovereignty in the case Casino Pauma v. NLRB. The nation’s highest court refused to review a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the southern California tribe must obey the federal labor laws at its Casino Pauma.
The tribe had asked the Supreme Court to review the case, which declined without comment. That means last year’s ruling by the appeals court stands.
The National Labor Relations Board, which for decades did not claim jurisdiction over tribal businesses, ended that inaction in 2004 when it began claiming oversight on some tribal enterprises, including casinos, which, it says, employ non-Indians and have a largely non-Indian client base.
In such cases, wrote Judge Marsha S. Brezon on the 9th Circuit: “Under these circumstances—in which both the board and the parties present reasonable interpretations of an ambiguous provision in the NLRA—the court must defer to the board’s conclusions respecting the meaning of federal labor law.”
Unlike tribes, state and local governments are not bound by NLRB rulings.
For several years a coalition of Congressional representatives and senators have tried to pass the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act that would stipulate that tribes are exempt from labor laws, but they have been stymied. Last year the bill passed in the House but was defeated in the Senate.
The latest bill to attempt this change is H.R. 779, which is seen as dead on arrival in the Democrat-dominated House, which is closely allied to labor interests.
Senator Jerry Moran has introduced a similar bill, S.226. He commented recently, “It is time to correct a decade-old error made by the National Labor Relations Board and once again allow tribal governments, elected by their members, to possess the right to make informed decisions on behalf of those they represent.”
