FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 20, 2006
CONTACT: Steve Forde
Telephone: (202) 225-4527

House Panel Examines Legislation to Reverse Controversial Federal Decision Restricting

Tribal Sovereignty

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations today heard testimony on the Tribal Labor Relations Restoration Act (H.R. 16), legislation authored by Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) to reverse the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling in the case of San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino.  This controversial Spring 2004 decision extended NLRB jurisdiction to include activities conducted by Native American tribes on Native American lands – an action viewed as a critical blow to tribal sovereignty.

 

“In the San Manuel case, the Board rejected its long-standing view of the National Labor Relations Act and ruled that it would no longer afford the same level of respect to sovereign Indian tribes engaged in business on their own tribal lands,” said Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX).  “Rather, the Board set itself up as a judge of not just federal labor policy, but also of federal Indian policy.  It raises serious questions as to whether the Board in this instance is over-reaching by injecting itself into federal policymaking outside the scope of its responsibilities.”

 

Native American tribes have long argued that because they are the equivalent of sovereign state and local governments, they should be exempt from the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Act.  And until recently, the NLRB held that because of tribal sovereignty, its jurisdiction under the Act did not extend over tribal activities that were sited on Native American lands.  In contrast, if tribal activities occurred off of those lands, the NLRB had “discretionary” jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act, which it would assert if appropriate.  The San Manuel ruling, however, departed from that longstanding precedent.

 

Rep. Hayworth offered testimony on his straightforward purpose of introducing H.R. 16.

 

“My legislation will insert simple but necessary clarification language into the National Labor Relations Act to make clear the fact that businesses owned by sovereign tribal governments and operated on tribal reservations were never intended to be governed under the Act,” said Hayworth.  “It is my opinion that the 2004 NLRB ruling in the San Manuel case discounts both the honor and the integrity of Native people.  It sends the message that the United States of America does not trust a sovereign tribal government to treat its employees fairly.  This is the wrong message to send, and it must be corrected.”

 

The Honorable Joe Garcia, President of the National Congress of American Indians and

Governor of Ohkay Owingeh (San Juan Pueblo), expressed to Members his organization’s strong support for Hayworth’s legislation because of the precedent that had been set decades ago by the NLRB to exempt Native American tribes from the National Labor Relations Act.

 

“H.R. 16 would restore the intent of Congress to treat tribal governments the same as state and local governments under the National Labor Relations Act,” Garcia noted.  “For over thirty years, the NLRB has interpreted the National Labor Relations Act to include tribal governments in its general exemption for government entities because of Congress’s intent to exempt all government entities.  The Board has also ruled that territorial governments, such as Puerto Rico and Guam, are also exempt under National Labor Relations Act.”

 

The Honorable Ronald Johnson, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer of the Prairie Island Indian Community, explained to the Committee his views on why Native American tribes should be granted NLRB exemptions similar to those granted to other government bodies.

 

            “As governments engaged in economic activity on Indian lands to fund essential government services, sovereign tribes including ours should enjoy the same exempt status as the United States, government corporations, and the states and their political subdivisions,” said Johnson.  “As is the case with other governmental entities, our activities are restricted by jurisdictional boundaries.  We conduct our economic activity and perform essential governmental services on our tribal lands.  And as is the case with state and local governments, we cannot freely relocate our enterprises to different locations to obtain a competitive business advantage or to access a larger population of potential employees.  There is simply no reason to treat tribal government-operated businesses any differently than other governmental entities.”

Press Releases