U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

24–757 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

H.R. 986, TRIBAL LABOR SOVEREIGNTY 

ACT OF 2017 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, 

EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 29, 2017 

Serial No. 115–12 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn ‘‘GT’’ Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick W. Allen, Georgia 

Jason Lewis, Minnesota 

Francis Rooney, Florida 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia 

Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania 

A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Takano, California 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Donald Norcross, New Jersey 

Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Adriano Espaillat, New York 

Brandon Renz, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Rick W. Allen, Georgia 

Jason Lewis, Minnesota 

Francis Rooney, Florida 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania 

A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Ranking Member 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Donald Norcross, New Jersey 

Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Adriano Espaillat, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 29, 2017 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions ............................................ 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor and Pensions ...................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Brown, Mr. Nathaniel, Delegate, 23rd Navajo Nation Council, The Navajo 

Nation ............................................................................................................ 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Cladoosby, Mr. Brian, President, National Congress Of American Indians, 

and Chair, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community ...................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Gribbon, Mr. John, California Political, Director, UNITEHERE! International Union, AFL-CIO ............................................................................. 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27 

Welch, Mr. Robert J. Jr., Chairman, Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians .... 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33 

Additional Submissions: 

Mr. Cladoosby: 

Letter dated April 12, 2017, from National Congress of American 

Indians .................................................................................................... 61 

Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Connecticut: 

Letter from UAW Local 2121 ................................................................... 65 

Mr. Gribbon response to questions submitted for the record ................ 95 

Lewis, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota: 

Letter dated March 29, 2017, from the Chamber of Commerce of 

the United States of America ............................................................... 68 

Mr. Sablan: 

Letter dated March 27, 2017, from United Steelworkers (USW) .......... 70 

Letter from International Labor Office (ILO) ......................................... 72 

Letter dated March 28, 2017, from International Union of Operating 

Engineers ................................................................................................ 75 

2010 Blackfeet Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance and Safety Enforcement Act of 2010 ............................................................................ 76 

Questions submitted for the record .........................................................92, 94 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia: 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 78 

Chairman: Walberg: 

Slide: Protecting Tribal Sovereignty ........................................................ 5 

Prepared statement from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians ......... 82 

Prepared statement of Hon. Larry Romanelli, Ogema, Little River 

Band of Ottawa Indians ........................................................................ 85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

H.R. 986, TRIBAL LABOR SOVEREIGNTY 

ACT OF 2017 

Wednesday, March 29, 2017 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Walberg [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Walberg, Roe, Rokita, Allen, Lewis, 

Mitchell, Smucker, Ferguson, Sablan, Wilson of Florida, Norcross, 

Blunt Rochester, Shea-Porter, Espaillat, and Courtney. 

Also Present: Representatives Foxx and Scott. 

Staff Present: Bethany Aronhalt, Press Secretary; Andrew 

Banducci, Workforce Policy Counsel; Ed Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; Jessica Goodman, Legislative Assistant; Callie Harman, Legislative Assistant; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Geoffrey 

MacLeay, Professional Staff Member; John Martin, Professional 

Staff Member; Dominique McKay, Deputy Press Secretary; James 

Mullen, Director of Information Technology; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Joseph Wheeler, 

Professional Staff Member; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and 

Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority Press Assistant; Michael DeMale, Minority Labor Detailee; Denise Forte, Minority 

Staff Director; Nicole Fries, Minority Labor Policy Associate; Christine Godinez, Minority Staff Assistant; Stephanie Lalle, Minority 

Press Assistant; Kevin McDermott, Minority Senior Labor Policy 

Advisor; Richard Miller, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; 

Veronique Pluviose, Minority General Counsel; and Elizabeth Watson, Minority Director of Labor Policy. 

Chairman WALBERG. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee 

on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions will come to order. 

Good morning to everyone here today, the committee as well as 

our witnesses, and those attending to hear what is going on. We 

thank you. 

I would like to begin by extending a warm welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses, including leaders of tribal governments. 

We are fortunate to have you all with us today, and look forward 

to hearing from you. 

This hearing is about one basic principle: the sovereign rights of 

Native Americans must be protected. A simple statement, it is a 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

simple principle. There are complex things surrounding it, but we 

hope to sort some of those out today. 

This core principle is woven deep into the fabric of our shared 

history. It is part of who we are as a society, and has long defined 

the unique government-to-government relationship that exists between the United States and independent tribal nations. 

What does tribal sovereignty mean? It means that Native American tribes have a fundamental right to self-govern. They have a 

right to self-determination. They have the freedom to advance their 

own economic policies in the pursuit of prosperity for tribal members. 

Bipartisan support for tribal sovereignty has been reaffirmed 

time and time again in Congress, and for more than 180 years, the 

Supreme Court has held that tribes possess a nationhood status 

and retain inherent powers of self-government. 

Unfortunately, the National Labor Relations Board has taken a 

number of alarming steps in the past decade that have created 

widespread concern in the Native American community and threatened Tribal sovereignty as we know it. 

For nearly 70 years, the Board respected Native American sovereignty, and did not apply its jurisdiction under the National 

Labor Relations Act over tribes. The reason was simple. While the 

NLRA provides important protections for workers, it is a private 

sector labor law that specifically excludes state, local, and federal 

governmental employees. 

Congress recognized the differences between public and private 

sector employment, so it afforded every level of government the 

freedom to determine its own labor policies, but that all changed 

in 2004 with its San Manuel Bingo & Casino decision, where the 

Board suddenly reversed course. 

It abandoned long-standing precedent and began using an arbitrary test to determine when and where to exert its jurisdiction 

over Native American tribes. 

The Board’s move understandably sparked outrage within the 

Native American community. In fact, the Chairman of the 

Mashantucket Pequot Nation testified before this very committee 

saying the Board’s decision was, and I quote, ‘‘an affront to Indian 

Country.’’ He added, and I quote again, ‘‘It suggests that Indian 

Tribes are incapable of developing laws and institutions that protect the rights of employees.’’ 

We also heard from the Lieutenant Governor of the Chickasaw 

Nation, one of the largest tribes in the country. He testified that 

tribal sovereignty is, I quote, ‘‘a profound issue of national importance that cannot be left in the hands of an admittedly inexpert 

Federal agency.’’ I could not agree more. 

The NLRB has no expertise in Indian law, and has no business 

meddling in the affairs of Tribal Nations, but the aggressive approach we have seen from unelected bureaucrats at the NLRB has 

only grown worse. A series of inconsistent and misguided decisions 

have created significant legal confusion for Native Americans and 

tribal-owned businesses. 

In order to prevent future NLRB overreach, Congress must pass 

the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. The legislation would amend the 

National Labor Relations Act to clarify that the law does not apply 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

to businesses owned and operated by Native American tribes and 

located on tribal land. 

This will ensure that tribes receive the same treatment as States 

and local governments when it comes to policies impacting their 

workforce. 

I want to thank our colleague, Todd Rokita, for championing this 

legislation, and I would like to point out that this legislation is not 

about union workers versus non-union workers. What this legislation is about is very simple, it is about the fundamental principle 

that tribal governments are sovereign and are free to self-govern. 

Congress now has the opportunity to reaffirm this principle and 

follow through on our promise to the Native American community. 

I hope we can have a thoughtful discussion today on how we can 

further our commitment to protecting tribal sovereignty. 

I will now yield to my friend, Ranking Member Sablan, for his 

opening remarks. 

[The statement of Mr. Walberg follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Walberg, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions 

This hearing is about one basic principle: The sovereign rights of Native Americans must be protected. 

This core principle is woven deep into the fabric of our shared history. It is part 

of who we are as a society and has long defined the unique government-to-government relationship that exists between the United States and independent, tribal nations. 

What does tribal sovereignty mean? It means that Native American tribes have 

a fundamental right to self-govern. They have a right to self-determination. And 

they have the freedom to advance their own economic policies in the pursuit of prosperity for tribal members. 

Bipartisan support for tribal sovereignty has been reaffirmed time and time again 

by Congress. And for more than 180 years, the Supreme Court has held that tribes 

possess a nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-government. 

Unfortunately, the National Labor Relations Board has taken a number of alarming steps in the past decade that have created widespread concern in the Native 

American community and threatened tribal sovereignty as we know it. 

For nearly 70 years, the board respected Native American sovereignty and did not 

apply its jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act over tribes. The reason 

was simple. While the NLRA provides important protections for workers, it is a private sector labor law that specifically excludes state, local, and federal government 

employers.+ 

Congress recognized the differences between public and private sector employment, so it afforded every level of government the freedom to determine its own 

labor policies. But that all changed in 2004. With its San Manuel Bingo & Casino 

decision, the board suddenly reversed course. It abandoned long-standing precedent 

and began using an arbitrary test to determine when and where to exert its jurisdiction over Native American tribes. 

The board’s move understandably sparked outrage within the Native American 

community. In fact, the Chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Nation testified before this very committee, saying the board’s decision was ‘‘an affront to Indian 

Country.’’ He added that it ‘‘suggests that Indian tribes are incapable of developing 

laws and institutions that protect the rights of employees.’’ 

We also heard from the Lieutenant Governor for the Chickasaw Nation—one of 

the largest tribes in the country. He testified that tribal sovereignty is a ‘‘profound 

issue of national importance that cannot be left in the hands of an admittedly inexpert federal agency.’’ I couldn’t agree more. The NLRB has no expertise in Indian 

law and has no business meddling in the affairs of tribal nations. 

But the aggressive approach we’ve seen from unelected bureaucrats at the NLRB 

has only grown worse. A series of inconsistent and misguided decisions have created 

significant legal confusion for Native Americans and tribal-owned businesses. 

In order to prevent future NLRB overreach, Congress must pass the Tribal Labor 

Sovereignty Act. The legislation would amend the National Labor Relations Act to 

clarify that the law does not apply to businesses owned and operated by Native 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

American tribes and located on tribal land. This will ensure that tribes receive the 

same treatment as states and local governments when it comes to policies impacting 

their workforce. 

I want to thank our colleague Todd Rokita for championing this legislation. And 

I’d like to point out that this legislation is not about union workers versus nonunion workers. What this legislation is about is very simple. It is about the fundamental principle that tribal governments are sovereign and are free to self-govern. 

Congress now has an opportunity to reaffirm this principle and follow through on 

our promise to the Native American community. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 24757.001

lllllllllllill 
6 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

today’s hearing on H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, and 

I would also like to wish a good morning and a welcome to all of 

our witnesses today. 

The effect of this legislation would be to strip employees who 

work at businesses owned and operated by an Indian tribe and located on Indian lands of the protections afforded by the National 

Labor Relations Act. 

This bill deals with a dispute between the sovereign rights of Native American tribes and the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively. However, this bill does not reconcile these competing interests, but rather strips hundreds of thousands of workers of their rights. 

I am a Chamorro, one of the indigenous people of the Marianas, 

and fully appreciate the importance of tribal sovereignty for Native 

Americans. 

I also believe deeply in workers’ rights to organize, to collectively 

bargain, and to protect their right to fight for a safe workplace, fair 

pay to provide a living for themselves and their families, and good 

benefits. 

To be fair, legislation and Labor Board decisions must balance 

these competing principles, and not favor one at the expense of the 

other. That is precisely what happened in the San Manuel Indian 

Bingo & Casino decision, where a Bush-era Labor Board by a bipartisan 3–1 vote asserted jurisdiction over a tribal casino on tribal 

lands. 

Using a template widely accepted by the federal courts, the 

Board stated it would exercise jurisdiction over commercial tribal 

enterprises, unless doing so would ‘‘touch exclusive rights of selfgovernment in purely intramural matters’’ or ‘‘abrogate rights 

guaranteed by treaty.’’ 

In the San Manuel decision, the Board noted a distinction between commercial tribal enterprises that employ a substantial 

number of non-Indians and cater to a non-Indian clientele versus 

traditional tribal services or governmental functions. 

At least 75 percent of employees at tribal casinos are non-tribal 

members, and in some cases, as few as one percent of the employees are members of the tribe operating the casino. They have no 

say in the decision making of tribal governments. 

There has been criticism of the San Manuel decision. However, 

the NLRB applied the same criteria as has been applied to other 

laws of general applicability, such as the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act (OSHA), the Fair Labor Standards Act, and many 

criminal statutes. 

For that reason, it is not surprising that multiple appeals courts 

have upheld San Manuel. Last year, the Supreme Court declined 

two petitions to overturn San Manuel. 

Federal labor law and tribal sovereignty can comfortably co-exist 

at tribal casinos without stripping workers of their rights under the 

National Labor Relations Act. 

As will be explained by a witness, some unions have consented 

to being governed by Tribal Labor Relations Ordinances, because 

these tribes adopted a mutually agreeable labor ordinance that proCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

tects workers’ rights to join a union, and establishes a neutral dispute resolution panel. 

The important point being, however, is that if these tribal ordinances were amended in the future, these workers would still be 

protected by the NLRA. Tribal labor ordinances can be a workable 

option only if (1) they provide protections substantially equivalent 

to those afforded by the National Labor Relations Act, and (2) the 

NLRA exists as a backstop. 

I want to thank the witnesses for taking the time to prepare 

their testimony and traveling to be here with us today. I also want 

to recognize one of the tribal casino workers, Mary Elizabeth Carter, who works at the Cache Creek Casino in Yolo County, California, and is a member of UNITEHERE!. 

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Sablan follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding a legislative hearing on H.R. 986, the Tribal 

Sovereignty Act. 

The effect of this legislation would be to strip employees, who work at businesses 

owned and operated by an Indian tribe and located on Indian lands, of the protections afforded by the National Labor Relations Act. 

This bill deals with a dispute between the sovereign rights of the Native American 

tribes and the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively. 

However, this bill does not reconcile these competing interests, but rather strips 

hundreds of thousands of workers of their rights 

I am a Chamorro, one of the native people of the Northern Marianas, and fully 

appreciate the importance of tribal sovereignty for Native Americans. 

But I also believe deeply in workers’ right to organize, to collectively bargain, and 

to protect their right to fight for a safe workplace, fair pay to provide a living for 

themselves and their families and good benefits. 

To be fair, legislation and labor board decisions must balance these competing 

principles, and not favor one at the expense of the other. That is precisely what happened in the San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino decision, where a Bush-era 

Labor Board (by a bipartisan 3–1 vote) asserted jurisdiction over a tribal casino on 

tribal lands. Using a template widely accepted by the federal courts, the Board stated it would exercise jurisdiction over commercial tribal enterprises, unless doing so 

would ‘‘touch exclusive rights of self-government in purely intramural matters’’ or 

‘‘abrogate rights guaranteed by treaty.’’ 

In the San Manuel decision the Board noted a distinction between commercial 

tribal enterprises that employ a substantial number of non-Indians and cater to a 

non-Indian clientele versus traditional tribal services or governmental functions. 

At least 75% of employees at tribal casinos are not tribal members, and in some 

cases, as few as 1 percent of the employees are members of the tribe operating the 

casino. They have no say in the decision-making of tribal governments. 

There has been criticism of the San Manuel decision. However, the NLRB applied 

the same criteria as has been applied to other ‘‘laws of general applicability’’, such 

the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the 

Fair Labor Standards Act and many criminal statutes. For that reason, it is not 

surprising that multiple Appeals Courts have upheld San Manuel. Last year, the 

Supreme Court declined two petitions to overturn San Manuel. 

Federal labor law and tribal sovereignty can comfortably co-exist at tribal casinos, 

without stripping workers of their rights under the NLRA. As will be explained by 

a witness, some unions have consented to being governed by Tribal Labor Relations 

Ordinances because these tribes adopted a mutually agreeable labor ordinance that 

protects workers’ right to join a union and establishes a neutral dispute resolution 

panel. The important point, however, is that if these tribal ordinances were amended in the future, the workers would still be protected by the NLRA. 

Tribal labor ordinances can be a workable option only if (1) they provide protections substantially equivalent to those afforded by the NLRA and (2) the NLRA exists as a backstop. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

I want to thank the witnesses for taking the time to prepare their testimony and 

traveling to be here with us today. I also want to recognize one of the tribal casino 

workers, Mary Elizabeth Carter, who works at the Cache Creek Casino in Yolo 

County California, and is a member of UNITE HERE. I yield back my time. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), all members will be permitted to submit written 

statements to be included in the permanent hearing record, and 

without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days 

to allow such statements and other extraneous materials referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing 

record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses, beginning with the Honorable Brian Cladoosby, who is 

president of the National Congress of American Indians, and chairman of the Swinomish Indian Senate. Welcome. 

The Honorable Nat Brown, who is delegate to the Navajo Nation 

Council. Welcome. 

Mr. John Gribbon is the California Political Director of the 

UNITEHERE! International Union. Welcome, Mr. Gribbon. 

The Honorable Robert J. Welch is chairman of the Viejas Board 

of Kumeyaay Indians. We welcome you as well. 

I will now ask our witnesses to stand and raise your right hand, 

if you would. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the 

record reflect the witnesses answered all in the affirmative. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

explain the lighting system, and make that very brief. It is like the 

stop lights that we generally honor. I am only speaking for myself 

there. When it is green, keep going. You have five minutes during 

that green segment. When it turns yellow, that means a minute is 

left, so go faster, and do not push it to orange. When it turns red, 

complete your sentence, your basic thought. We appreciate that. 

There will be plenty of opportunity to expand on that as we ask 

questions. 

Now, I would like to recognize our first witness, Chairman 

Cladoosby. 

TESTIMONY OF BRIAN CLADOOSBY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, AND CHAIR, SWINOMISH 

INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Good morning, Chairman Walberg, Ranking 

Member Sablan. It is an honor to be here with you and your distinguished members of the subcommittee to talk about a very important subject that is near and dear to the hearts of many tribes, all 

tribes across the nation, and we are here to voice our strong support of H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017. 

The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act is a simple fix that adds 

‘‘Tribes’’ to the definition of ‘‘governmental entities exempt from the 

National Labor Relations Act of 1935.’’ In doing so, the legislation 

reinforces a critical part of Congress’ efforts to support governmental parity for tribal governments and respect for sovereignty of 

tribal governments. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

I want to start by saying that Indian Country does not view this 

as a fight between tribal governments and labor. In many tribal 

communities across the country, tribal governments and unions 

work hand in hand to improve the working conditions of Indian 

and non-Indian workers. 

We greatly appreciate the significant contributions that unions 

have made, not only in Indian Country, but across the United 

States. 

Where tribal sovereignty is undermined or threatened in any 

way, we have no choice but to take a strong stand. This is what 

has happened in the National Labor Relations Board application of 

the NLRA to tribes. When the NLRA was enacted in 1935 to address growing upheavals in private industry, Congress exempted 

all government employers and all government owned and operated 

businesses from the act and the reach of the NLRB. 

The act does not specifically exempt the District of Columbia, 

U.S. Territories, and tribal governments, but the Board consistently interpreted the government exemption to include tribes and 

these other governments. 

Until 2004, for 70 years, the Board reversed a long-standing interpretation that declared that Congress intended the act to apply 

to tribal governments. With that decision, the Board upended 70 

years of precedent, and unilaterally disregarded tribal labor law 

and made tribal governments the only governments in the United 

States subject to the NLRA. 

With the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, Congress resolves any 

question about whether the NLRA applies to tribal governments 

and affirms sovereign governmental rights of Indian tribes to make 

their own labor policies that govern their own governmental employees. 

Sovereignty means that these decisions must be left to the tribes, 

not federal bureaucrats, just as 90,000 other units of governments 

across the United States make these decisions for their employees. 

I’ve discussed what the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act does, now 

let me take a moment to describe what it does not do. The legislation will not expand tribal jurisdiction outside that allowed to other 

sovereigns. It will not create union free zones on Indian lands. The 

bill only applies to employers who are first, tribal governments, 

and second, who operate on their own lands. 

For private sector employers located on Indian lands, the legislation would have no effect or application. The legislation would simply restore the intent of Congress that tribal governments should 

not be treated as private sector employers under the NLRA. 

Applying a private sector model to force collective bargaining 

over all conditions of employment under the threat of protected 

strikes is a formula for destabilizing any government. Giving an 

outside party the power to call a strike of a government’s workforce 

is counter to the very concept of sovereignty, and requires that a 

governmental employer choose between surrendering its sovereign 

right to enact laws or being shut down by work stoppages. 

This is particularly problematic for tribal governments who lack 

an effective tax base and are required to engage in economic activity to raise revenue and fund local programs and services. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

As a result, for many tribal governments, tribal agriculture, energy, gaming operations, timber operations, and other tribal enterprises constitute the sole source of governmental revenues used to 

fund essential governmental services. Unlike private businesses, no 

government can safely shut down its enterprise operations because 

of labor disputes. Tribal police and fire departments, our schools 

and hospitals, our courts and our tribal legislatures must stay open 

to provide governmental services to our citizens. 

Thus, passage of the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act is consistent 

with Congress’ initial intent to exempt governmental employers 

from the National Labor Relations Act. In conclusion, I want to reiterate that Indian tribes support 

strong relationships with their employees. The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act builds upon the principle that when Tribal sovereignty 

is respected and acknowledged, successful, accountable, and responsible governments and economies follow. 

Thank you for your commitment to maintaining the integrity and 

effectiveness of tribal governments, and for guarding against actions that would deny to those governments the same rights accorded to other state and local governments. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Chairman and ranking member. 

[The statement of Mr. Cladoosby follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 24757.002

Statement of the Honorable Brian Cladoosby 

President of the National Congress of American Indians and 

Chair ofthe Swinomish Indian Tribal Community 

Testimony before the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions 

Hearing on H.R.986- The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017 

March 29, 2017 

INTRODUCTION 

Good morning Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished members of this 

Subcommittee. Thank you for your invitation to testifY today and for your commitment to 

upholding the Constitution of the United States, and with it the governmental status ofTribal 

Nations and the trust and treaty responsibilities of the federal government. Tribal sovereignty is 

an essential aspect of our governmental status. I thank you for focusing today's hearing on tribal 

sovereignty. 

I would like to thank Representative Rokita for sponsoring H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor 

Sovereignty Act of2017, and thank his bi-partisan colleagues who have co-sponsored it, 

Representatives Cole, Noem, Moore, Lujan Grisham, Peterson, Mullin, Cheney, LaMalfa, Gosar 

and Lewis. 

I've been honored to serve as President of the National Congress of American Indians for the 

past four years. NCAI is the oldest, largest, and most representative tribal government 

organization in the nation. NCAI urges Congress to move quickly to enact H.R. 986 to fix a 

problem created by the National Labor Relations Board's decision to single out Indian tribes as 

the only form of government in the United States subjected to the National Labor Relations Act. 
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 24757.003

NCAI views the enactment of the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act as a crucial step for Congress to 

take to ensure that the United States consistently respects the sovereignty of tribal governments, 

and does so by explicitly adding "tribes" to the definition of governmental entities exempt from 

the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. 

TRIBAL LABOR MATTERS ARE BEST LEFT TO INDIAN TRIBES 

At the outset, I want to say that many tribal leaders recognize and appreciate the significant 

contributions that labor unions have made to working people in the United States, including 

those working in Indian Country. Many of us have worked on farms and in factories and on 

jobsites all over the United States. We greatly appreciate the efforts oflabor unions to improve 

wages and working conditions for American men and women in the workforce. 

For years, the member tribes ofNCAI have deliberated over tribal labor matters and have voiced 

their enduring and strong support for the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. Attached please find a 

copy ofNCAI Resolution SD-15-056, Support for Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. NCAI 

supports H.R. 986 because it affirms the sovereign governmental right oflndian tribes to make 

their own labor policies that govern their own governmental employees based on the economic 

and social conditions existing on tribal lands. A significant number oflndian tribes exercise that 

sovereign authority by welcoming labor unions and encouraging union activity and organization 

of the tribal workforce under tribal law. But sovereignty means that is a choice reserved for 

Indian tribal governments --- not a choice made for a tribe by federal bureaucrats. 

H.R. 986 will restore the intent of Congress that tribal governments should not be treated as 

private sector employers under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). The NLRA was 

enacted in 1935 in the midst of the Great Depression to address growing upheavals in private 

industry. Congress exempted all government employers and all government-owned and operated 

businesses from the Act and from the reach of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or 

"Board"). Although the NLRA did not specifically list out every type of exempted government 

(e.g., it did not expressly identifY the governments ofthe District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, 

or Indian tribes), for decades the Board properly and consistently interpreted the governmental 

employer exemption to include the governments of the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories 

and possessions, and the various Indian tribes. 

In 1976, in Fort Apache Timber Company and Construction, the Board considered application of 

the NLRA to a commercial timber and construction company owned and operated by the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe, which has its principal office and place of business located at the tribal 

government headquarters on its Reservation near White River, Arizona. The Board examined 

and acknowledged the commercial nature of the Tribe's corporation in ruling that the Tribe's 

corporation did not fall within the NLRA 's definition of a private sector "employer" but instead 

was within the Act's governmental employer exemption. 

Consistent with our discussion of authorities recognizing the sovereign-government 

character of the Tribal Council in the political scheme of this country it would be possible 

to conclude that the Council is the equivalent of a State, or an integral part of the 

government of the United States as a whole, and as such specifically excluded from the 

2 
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 24757.004

Act's Section 2(2) definition of'employer.' We deem it unnecessary to make that finding 

here, however, as we conclude, and find that the Tribal Council, and its self-directed 

enterprise on the reservation that is here asserted to be an employer, are implicitly exempt 

as employers within the meaning of the Act. 

In 2004 the NLRB did an about-face in San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, 341 NLRB 138, 

and -- without either receiving new statutory language from Congress or consulting tribes --

declared that Congress intended the Act to apply to tribal government employers engaged in 

revenue raising activity. The Board created a new governmental v. commercial test to determine 

whether it will apply the NLRA to tribal governmental employers. In San Manuel, the Board 

found that "the tribe's operation of the casino is not an exercise of self-governance .... The casino 

is a typical commercial enterprise, it employs non-Indians, and caters to non-Indian[s]." This 

rationale ignores the stated goals and intent of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act as well 

as the function and importance oflndian gaming revenues to tribal government operations, 

programs and community services. 

The 2004 San Manuel decision upended seventy years of precedent and unilaterally disregarded 

tribal labor law and instead imposed NLRB jurisdiction on a tribal government's relationship 

with its own governmental workforce when a tribe is operating on tribal lands to raise 

governmental revenue and provide employment to tribal members. This interpretation of the Act 

is in direct conflict with the Act's exemption of governmental employers. Over 90,000 other 

units of government in America, who employ over 21 million Americans, are not subject to the 

NLRA. The Board in 2004 made tribal governments the only governments subject to the NLRA. 

LIKE OTHER GOVERNMENTS, TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS 

RELY ON ENTERPRISES TO GENERATE GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES 

Congress's wisdom in exempting governmental employers from the NLRA is plain. Applying a 

private sector model of forced collective bargaining over all conditions of employment, under the 

threat of protected strikes, is a formula for bringing a government to its knees. Giving an outside 

party the power to call a strike of a government's workforce requires that governmental 

employer to choose between surrendering its sovereign right to enact laws or being shut down by 

work stoppages. This is particularly problematic for tribal governments who lack an effective 

tax base and are obliged to engage in economic activity to raise revenue to fund programs and 

services to their members and neighbors. Indian lands are held in trust by the U.S. and cannot be 

subjected to real estate taxation, high reservation unemployment makes income taxation 

unworkable, and restrictive Supreme Court rulings have severely limited tribal government sales 

taxes. As a result, for many tribal governments-Indian gaming operations, tribal agriculture, 

energy and timber operations, and other tribal government enterprises constitute the sole source 

of governmental revenue that is used to fund tribal public safety, education, health, housing and 

other essential services to residents oflndian Country. 

Let me make one point very clear-- the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act is a very limited "fix." It 

will not create "union free zones" on Indian lands. By its own terms, H.R.986 only applies to 

employers who are, #I, tribal governments, and #2, who operate on their own Indian lands. So 

3 
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 24757.005

for private sector employers located on Indian lands, H.R.986 would have no effect or 

application. 

Tribal government enterprise activities are as critical to the delivery of essential government 

services as is a tax base to any other government. Unlike private businesses, no government can 

safely shut down its enterprise operations because of labor disputes. Our police and fire 

departments, our schools and hospitals, our courts, and our tribal legislatures must stay open, and 

they require funding from tribal enterprises. Likewise, it is a basic aspect of tribal sovereignty for 

Indian Nations to control our relations with our own governmental employees on our own lands. 

A tribal governmental employer exemption from the NLRA, as H.R. 986 provides, is crucial to 

our existence as sovereign tribal governments. 

THE NLRB 'S SAN MANUEL DECISION TURNED ON AN UNWARRANTED AND UNFAIR 

FOCUS ON TRIBAL GOVERNMENT GAMING 

Although tribal governments operate many types of enterprises with government employees, 

most often in natural resources management, much of the focus of this tribal labor relations issue 

has been on Indian gaming enterprises. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA") expressly 

states its purpose "to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a 

means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal 

governments." 25 U.S.C. Section 2702(1) (Declaration of Policy). In addition, IGRA mandates 

that tribal governments use net revenues from Indian gaming solely for government purposes: to 

fund tribal government operations or programs; to provide for the general welfare of the tribal 

community; to promote tribal economic development; to donate to charitable organizations; or to 

help fund operations of local government agencies. 25 U.S.C. Section 271 O(b )(2)(8). Indian 

gaming revenues are often the sole source of non-federal funds to improve reservation health 

care, education, public safety, and the general welfare of Native communities. Tribal gaming has 

also helped begin to rebuild tribal infrastructure, roads, water and telecommunications systems, 

and much more. In sum, tribal governmental gaming is essential to furthering the congressional 

goals of tribal self-government and self-sufficiency. 

The NLRB makes no commercial vs. governmental distinction for state and local government 

commercial enterprises, including state lottery and other gaming-related governmental 

operations. Disparate treatment oflndian tribes for purposes of the NLRA violates the 

longstanding federal policy of indian Self-Determination. 

The IGRA is quite clear in treating tribal gaming as governmental in nature and not commercial 

gaming. Tribal gaming is a government activity to raise desperately needed revenue for tribal 

government functions. In this way, tribal gaming is much more akin to state lotteries than to 

commercial gaming. 

Statements by members of Congress at the time IGRA was deliberated make clear that IGRA 

was not intended to undermine tribal government regulatory authority on the reservation. As 

Senator Daniel K. Inouye, one of!GRA's main sponsors in the Senate and long-time Chairman 

of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, stated on the floor shortly before IGRA cleared the 

Senate: 

4 
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 24757.006

There is no intent on the part of Congress that the compacting methodology be used 

in such areas such as taxation, water rights, environmental regulation, and land use. 

On the contrary, the tribal power to regulate such activities, recognized by the U.S. 

Supreme Court ... remain fully intact. The exigencies caused by the rapid growth of 

gaming in Indian country and the threat of corruption and infiltration by criminal 

clements in Class III gaming warranted utilization of existing State regulatory 

capabilities in this one narrow area. No precedent is meant to be set as to other areas. 

( 134 Con g. Rec. S24024-25, Sept. 15, 1988) 

HR.986 RE-AFFIRMS TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY IN LABOR RELATIONS 

It is important that the Committee understand that in many ways tribal communities are an 

emerging market, often with vulnerable economies and that labor policy on Indian lands is an 

important aspect of economic regulation that should be left to Indian tribes as sovereign 

governments. There are at least four ways that the NLRB's flawed interpretation of its 

governing statute substantially interferes with important attributes of tribal sovereignty in ways 

that have not been contemplated or authorized by Congress. 

First, guaranteeing tribal employees the right to strike would preempt tribal law and threaten 

tribal government services. We are very concerned that the right to strike would allow outside 

forces --- third parties with little or no connection to the tribal community ---to control tribal 

government decisions. On most reservations there is only one major employer and it is a tribal 

government enterprise, usually a casino or an agriculture or timber operation. It is often the only 

major source of tribal revenue, so it must keep operating in order to keep the schools open and 

the police departments staffed and vigilant. Allowing labor unions the right to strike would give 

them inordinate leverage to demand larger and larger shares of the tribal enterprise revenue, 

revenues that are intended to provide desperately-needed services in tribal communities. 

Government services are critically important to a large segment of the public, and the public is 

especially vulnerable to "blackmail" strikes by government employees. This is the reason that 

government employees are generally barred from striking. Federal employees and most state 

employees generally do not have the right to strike. See 5 U .S.C. 7116(b )(7), 7311; DiSabatino, 

Who Are Employees Forbidden to Strike Under State Enactments or State Common-Law Rules 

Prohibiting Strikes by Public Employees or Stated Classes of Public Employees, 22 A.L.R. 4th 

1103 (1983). Where government employees do have the right to strike, the government itself has 

alone made its own sovereign decision to expose itself as an employer to a strike. It is the 

antithesis of sovereignty for one government to make that decision for another government. Yet 

this is precisely what the Board did in its 2004 San Manuel decision. 

Tribal governments have as urgent a need as state or local governments to uninterrupted 

performance of services to the community, and are demonstrably more vulnerable. Many tribal 

governments have little or no discretionary funding other than revenue from their economic 

enterprises. Strikes against tribal enterprises that the NLRB dismissively describes as 

"commercial in nature- not governmental" could easily disrupt tribal programs and services to a 

greater degree than state or local governments because other governments can rely on the bulk of 

their revenues coming from a tax base which tribes lack. The NLRB has made the implausible 

5 
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 24757.007

assumption that Congress intended to expose tribal governments to strikes by tribal employeesan exposure the Act spares other governments. 

Second, treating Indian tribes as private employers under the NLRA would interfere with tribal 

authority to require Indian preference in employment. With the approval of Congress and the 

courts, the vast majority ofindian tribes have enacted tribal laws requiring employers doing 

business in Indian Country to give preference to Indians in all phases of employment. Preference 

laws are important because the unemployment rate in Indian communities is much higher than 

anywhere else in the country. On many large, rural reservations a majority of adults are 

unemployed or out of the workforce. Congress recognized and explicitly protected tribal 

preference laws in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which excludes tribes from the definition of 

"employer" and exempts businesses "on or near" Indian reservations. In Morton v. Mancari, 417 

U.S. 535 (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld this provision. 

Application of the NLRA to tribal enterprises would jeopardize a tribe's right to enforce its 

Indian preference laws. If tribal employees chose a union it would become the "exclusive 

representative of all the employees." The union would have the duty of equal treatment and 

nondiscrimination among its members. The tribe would be obligated to negotiate with the union 

in order to exercise its sovereign right to apply its Indian preference laws. The union might resist 

the application of Indian preference, or seek to condition its acceptance on concessions by the 

tribe on other issues. Requiring a tribe to bargain to retain its Indian preference laws seriously 

interferes with the tribe's core retained rights to make and enforce its own laws. In view of 

Congress's strong support oflndian preference, it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress 

intended to force tribes to bargain with unions to preserve their Indian preference laws. Yet this 

is what follows from the NLRB's construction of the NLRA. 

Third, treating Indian tribes as private employers interferes with the fundamental right of tribes 

to exclude non-members in the employment context. The tribal power to exclude from tribal 

lands is one of the most fundamental powers of tribal government and the partial source of tribal 

civil jurisdiction over non-members. The power to exclude includes the power to "place 

conditions on entry, on conditioned presence, or on reservation conduct." See, Merrion v . 

.!icarrilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 at 144 (1982). 

However, if the NLRA applies to tribes as employers, their right to exclude in that context would 

be abrogated. For example, a hearing or arbitration required under the NLRA could lead to 

reinstatement and return of employees that the tribe had fired and lawfully banned from the 

reservation for misconduct. The NLRB makes the unreasonable assumption that Congress 

intended to interfere with this core right of tribal sovereignty. 

Fourth, and finally, a union with many tribal members could substantially interfere with tribal 

government internal politics. On larger reservations the majority of the employees are tribal 

members. A powerful union leader could manipulate union votes in tribal elections. The union 

could strike or threaten to strike immediately before an election. The union could demand health 

care benefits that are better than other tribal members. The union could bargain to limit 

employment in order to raise wages and interfere with the tribal government's plans to employ as 

many tribal members as possible. Because of the relatively small size of tribal communities, 

6 
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 24757.008

unions could sow considerable political and social discord and dominate tribal politics in a way 

that would benefit union members but operate to the detriment of the tribe as a whole. 

ENAC11NG H.R. 986 WOULD NOT DEPRIVE ANYONE OF THEIR RIGHTS 

Non-native employees working for tribal governments are in no different position than are outof-state employees working for local or state government. Millions of Americans cross state and 

local government borders every day to go to work, including to state and local government jobs. 

Nowhere is this more clear than in Washington, DC, where workers from Northern Virginia, DC 

and Maryland commute daily across state lines to work for state or local governments. None of 

these employees have voting rights to participate in the political process of the state or local 

government of their employer. For example Census Bureau reports detail how many police 

officers live in the cities where they serve. On average, among the 75 U.S. cities with the largest 

police forces, 60 percent of police officers reside outside the city limits. Just 12 percent of 

officers in the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C. live in the District and 

only 7 percent of officers in Miami live within city limits. Even with these numbers, no one can 

suggest that out-of-jurisdiction employees are unfairly unable to influence their governmental 

employers. To the contrary, Indian tribes, like other governmental employers, have a huge 

interest in ensuring that their employees are satisfied and productive in serving community 

needs. In fact, tribal government employers regularly are hailed as the best employers in their 

regions. 

H.R. 986 IS NOT A "TROJAN HORSE" VIS A VIS OTHER WORKFORCE LAWS 

Some have suggested the legislation before this subcommittee is nothing more than a "Trojan 

Horse" that, if enacted, will inevitably lead to other bills frustrating the application of other 

federal workforce laws to activities on Indian lands. This is simply untrue: the Tribal Labor 

Sovereignty Act will not affect the implementation of any other federal law regulating the 

workplace. Each of those laws is from a different era and deals with Indian tribes on its own 

terms. For example the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 specifically exempts Indian 

tribal governments from the definition of"employer." Today Indian tribes have worked 

diligently to create accessible workplaces using their own sovereign authority.to do so, providing 

an excellent example of how tribal governments whose sovereignty is respected will advance 

worker protection as a matter of tribal self-determination. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that Indian tribes support strong relationships with their 

employees. Indian reservations are not in urban centers and have suffered from decades of 

unemployment, poverty and federal neglect. We have to work hard to attract and retain good 

employees. The exercise of tribal sovereignty has led to development of tribal enterprises and 

has been one of the major success stories of the rural economy in many economically depressed 

tribal areas. However, these are still Indian reservations. The only reason people commute to 

jobs on Indian reservations is because tribes compete favorably against other employers, offering 

better wages and working conditions. It defies reality to suggest that Indian tribes are able to 

7 
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 24757.009

disadvantage non-Indian employees who have mobility to find better pay and working conditions 

elsewhere. We are not aware of any tribe that does not have extensive process for employees to 

make complaints and to appeal adverse employment decisions. My point is that tribal enterprises 

have not succeeded by fighting with their employees; rather tribal enterprises prosper by building 

partnerships with their employees that benefit all. But a partnership with a tribal government has 

to be founded on the recognition that a tribe is a government and the mechanism for setting tribal 

policies must come from within the tribe's government, rather than being imposed from the 

outside. 

The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act builds upon a principle that has been long established by 

Indian tribes across the country: when tribal sovereignty is respected and acknowledged, 

successful, accountable and responsible governments and economies follow. This is not merely 

a legal issue but a moral imperative of protecting and defending the sovereignty of America's 

Indian tribes, and guarding against any discrimination against those tribes. There is no good 

reason to treat tribal governments in any way different from other governments. Federal law 

should uphold, not undercut, parity of treatment and equality of opportunity for tribal 

governments. 

Thank you for your commitment to maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of tribal 

governments, and for guarding against actions that would deny to those governments the same 

rights accorded other state and local governments. 

8 
19 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. Now, I recognize 

Delegate Brown for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF NATHANIEL BROWN, DELEGATE, 23RD NAVAJO 

NATION COUNCIL, THE NAVAJO NATION 

Mr. BROWN. Ya ́at ́eeh, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member 

Sablan, and members of the Committee. My name is Nathaniel 

Brown, 23rd Navajo Nation Council. I am sitting here on behalf of 

Navajo Nation president, Russell Begay. He apologizes for not 

being able to testify, but he had other obligations that he could not 

get out of. 

However, thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on 

H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017. Let me start 

off by stating that we support this legislation as well as the companion bill in the Senate, S. 63. The bill is a step in the right direction towards honoring our sovereignty and self-determination. 

We are a sovereign nation. We have been here since time immemorial. We have signed treaties with Spain, Mexico, and the 

United States in 1868. We continue to honor the Treaty of 1868, 

which is approaching its 150th anniversary. 

We also have the inherent right to self-determination and selfgovernance. In exercising these principles, the Navajo people have 

created and developed our own government made up of executive, 

legislative, and judicial branches. Our executive and legislative 

leaders are elected by the Navajo people. Our judicial branches are 

appointed by the president of the Navajo Nation and confirmed by 

the legislative branch, similar to the federal government. 

We also develop, pass, and execute our own laws. When we pass 

laws, we expect these laws shall govern that our laws are not superseded or pushed aside by the laws of another governmental entity, including the federal government. 

We are not asking for special treatment. We want the same 

treatment as the federal government and states. If they are able 

to self-govern and be self-determined with regard to the NLRA, so 

should we. 

The NLRA was passed in 1935, and at that particular time, Indian tribes may not have been considered in many pieces of legislation. It was probably not even contemplated that the NLRA might 

have jurisdiction over Indian Tribes until 1976, in the Fort Apache 

Timber Company matter. 

It has been a long time coming, more than 80 years, and we have 

the opportunity to resolve this issue. We also need clarity and certainty. In 1976, the NLRB took one position, holding that tribal 

governments and tribal enterprises were exempt from the NLRA. 

However, in 2004, the NLRB reversed their position in San Manuel 

Indian Bingo & Casino, and held that the Board has jurisdiction 

over tribally-owned enterprises. A different Board took a different 

view of the law and what facts should apply. 

Boards have also been consistent in its approaches in applying 

NLRA to Indian tribes. H.R. 986 can provide a level of certainty 

so that the NLRB can have a consistent view even if Board members change from time to time. 

Furthermore, a troubling trend that we see in NLRB decisions is 

that when Indian tribes and their enterprises are not doing what 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

20 

is considered traditional tribal or governmental functions, they will 

be regulated. If we become more involved in commercial activity, 

we will be regulated. 

We need to get away from this type of thinking in the federal 

government. In today’s world, Indian tribes have to get involved in 

a commercial world in order to help fund a continuous shortage of 

federal funding to provide needed services on the reservation. An 

Indian tribe’s use of tribal enterprise in a commercial arena to help 

fund needed services should not be used to hamper or punish the 

Indian tribe. 

The Navajo Nation does have unions that operate on the reservations. The Navajo tribal government has entered into three collaborative bargaining agreements under our Division of Public Safety, 

our Executive Branch, and Head Start Department. 

From my understanding, there are some private sector/labor 

union agreements in place for employees on the Navajo Nation. A 

worker’s right to join a union is protected pursuant to our Navajo 

Preference and Employment Act. We understand some tribes may 

have laws that are different than ours, but our ultimate message 

is that each Indian tribe should be able to determine its own direction on labor issues, as well as other issues. 

In conclusion, thank you for holding this hearing. Again, we support this legislation because it supports our sovereignty and selfdetermination. It will also greatly simplify and provide clarity to 

this issue. We appreciate the leadership of this subcommittee, and 

look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member 

to pass this important legislation. Ahehee ́. [The statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 24757.010

Ill F :\.\ \',\]0 \;t\TlO:\ RU\Sill llll ;,\ Yl 1 ,. t 

ro:--: \TIL\:--: :--:u 

Testimony of Nathaniel Brown 

Navajo Nation Council Member 

The Navajo Nation 

Before the 

United States House Education and the Workforce Committee 

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor & Pensions 

Hearing on 

HR 986- Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017 

Wednesday, March 29,2017 

Ya'at'eeh (hello) Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Sablan, and members of the Committee. 

My name is Nathaniel Brown and I am a member of the Navajo Nation Council.! am testifYing on 

behalf of Russell Begay, the President of the Navajo Nation. Thank you for this opportunity to 

present testimony on HR 986, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017. 

Let me start off by stating that we support this legislation as well as its companion bill in the 

Senate, S. 63. The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017 is a step in the right direction, towards 

honoring our sovereignty and self-determination. 

SOVEREIGNTY 

We are a sovereign nation. We have been here since time immemorial. We have signed treaties 

with Spain, Mexico, and the United States in 1868. We continue to honor the Treaty of 1868, 

which is approaching its lSOth anniversary. 

We also have the inherent right to self-determination and self-governance. In exercising these 

principles, the Navajo people have developed our own government made up of an executive, 

legislative and judicial branch. Our executive and legislative leaders are elected by the Navajo 

people. Our judicial branch judges are appointed by the President of the Navajo Nation and 

confirmed by the legislative branch, similar to the federal government. We also develop, pass and 

execute our own laws. When we pass laws, we expect that these laws shall govern and that our 

laws are not superseded by or pushed aside by the laws of another governmental entity, 

including the federal government. 

PARITY WITH STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

As part of their jurisdictional standards, we understand that the National Labor Relations Act 

(NLRA) excludes "the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation, ... or any 

State or political subdivision thereof' from its definition of"employer." 29 U.S.C. § 152(2).1n 

addition, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), as part of their jurisdictional standards, 

I'OS I < ll I I! i· !\1 ).\ /HO \I I'\, I 1(1\\ R! JCK . . \I 86';15 I'll I'll~) K'l! 7000 H.\: IY2Bl S71 102S 
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 24757.011

states that "Federal, state and local governments, including public schools, libraries, and parks, 

Federal Reserve banks, and wholly-owned government corporations" are exempt from NLRA.1 

Our understanding is that Congress, as a policy matter, afforded the federal government, state 

governments and their entities this exemption because of the essential and sensitive nature of 

their work. Furthermore, Congress recognized these local governments' ability to self-govern. 

The NLRA was passed in 1935 and at that particular time, Indian tribes may have not been 

considered in many pieces of legislation. It was probably not even contemplated that the NLRA 

might have jurisdiction over Indian tribes until the 1976 Fort Apache Timber Co. matter. It has 

been a long time coming, more than 80 years, and we have the opportunity to resolve this issue. 

In requesting passage of this bill, we are not asking for special treatment. The United States and 

States have been afforded this exemption. We simply want parity. If they are able to self-govern 

and be self-determined with regards to the NLRA, so should we. We are simply asking that our 

right to self-govern is acknowledged and not brushed aside by an external agency, 

CLARITY AND CERTAINTY 

We need to have clarity and certainty in regards to this issue. From my understanding, the NLRB 

in 1976 took the position in Fort Apache Timber Co., 226 NLRB 503, not to assert their 

jurisdiction, holding that tribal governments, including a tribal enterprise, were exempt from the 

NRLA's definition of employer. However, in 2004, the NLRB administratively reversed and flipflopped its position in the San Manual Indian Bingo & Casino, 31 NLRB 138. Suddenly it held that 

the board has jurisdiction over a tribally-owned enterprise. In our view, those decisions should 

remain consistent and should not change because a different board may have a different view of 

the law and what facts should apply. 

Our own Navajo Department of justice attorneys also note that there is a problem of consistency 

between circuits where different federal circuit courts use different tests on the NLRA's 

application. In NLRB vs Sanjuan Pueblo, the Tenth Circuit applied a governmental/proprietary 

distinction to hold the Pueblo could regulate labor relations independent of the NLRA. 276 F.3d 

1186 (10th Cir. 2002). However, in San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino v. NLRB, the D.C. Circuit 

held the NLRA applied, adopting a sliding scale of sovereignty test, and deeming a casino to not 

be a "traditional act" performed by a government. 475 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Then, In two 

other cases, the Sixth Circuit held the NLRA applied to two tribal casinos. In the first case, the 

panel adopted the Ninth Circuit's Coeur D'Alene approach to laws of general applicability, 

holding the NLRA applies to tribal governments unless one of three exceptions exist, including 

whether "the law touches exclusive rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters," 

Donovan v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe, 751 F.2d 1113, 1116 (1985); see also NLRB v. Little River Band of 

Ottawa Indians Tribal Gov't, 788 F.3d 537 (2015). In the second, the panel felt compelled to 

follow Little River Band, despite their disagreement with the approach, but the majority also 

rejected an argument that the tribe's treaty exempted its casino from the NLRA, despite a Tenth 

Circuit opinion reaching the opposite conclusion for the Navajo Nation in the context of OSHA. 

Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort v. NLRB, 791 F.3d 648 (2015). As you can see, the different 

1 National Labor Relations Board. jurisdictional Standards. Retrieved March 27, 2017 from 

h ttps: I jwww .nlrb.gov frights-we-protectfjurisdictional-standa rds 

1'11'.;1 \JIIIIll\11\ 1-1·10 \\'1"111)\\ 1\(lcK \1: 51(,)1) I'll I')ISJW/1·7000 l.\\:l'l281Sll102', 
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 24757.012

circuits have applied different tests to determine whether the NLRA applies, creating significant 

confusion and uncertainty. Further, despite these conflicts within the Sixth Circuit and among 

the several circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert., leaving the inconsistent approaches 

intact. 

Therefore, as I stated previously, we need clarity and certainty on this issue and HR 986 can 

provide a level of certainty so that the NLRB can have a consistent view even if board members 

change from time to time. 

GOVERNMENTAL VS. COMMERCIAL 

One troubling trend that we see in the NLRB's approach in the San Manual Indian Bingo & Casino 

matter is that they have taken into consideration whether a tribal enterprise is "fulfilling 

traditionally tribal or governmental functions" or whether the tribe's activity is more commercial 

involving non-Indians and substantially affecting "interstate commerce." In fact, as a part of their 

jurisdictional standards, the NLRB "asserts jurisdiction over the commercial enterprises owned 

and operated by Indian tribes, even if they are located on a tribal reservation."2 However, they do 

not assert jurisdiction "over tribal enterprises that carry out traditional tribal or governmental 

function;;_."3 This type of consideration is troubling when a federal body can assert its jurisdiction 

when Indian tribe is participating in an activity the body considers outside a traditionally tribal 

or governmental function, such as commercial activity. Federal courts also make these 

distinctions when considering NLRA jurisdiction. We also face a similar test on whether an 

Indian tribe is eligible for tax exempt bonding. As far as 1 know, states and local governments do 

not have to go through this type of test, so why should we. 

Navajo as well as other Indian tribes do not have a tax base and it is difficult to implement a tax 

when unemployment rate hovers above 40-50 percent. As such, Navajo relies on the revenue of 

its enterprises to fund the tribal government and its services. Revenues from tribal enterprises 

do not go to the benefit of individual investors like it would in a private corporation, rather it 

goes toward essential governmental services such as healthcare, education, scholarships, public 

safety, housing, veterans' benefits, employment, etc. This should carry a lot of weight, but the 

NLRB dismisses this consideration in San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino. 

We must stray from this type of thinking in the federal government. Since Congress passed the 

Indian Self-Determination Act, Indian tribes have continued to advance and have entered the 

commercial world in order to help fund a continual shortage of federal funding to provide 

needed services on the reservation. An Indian tribe's use of tribal enterprise in a commercial 

arena to help fund needed services should not be used to hamper or punish an Indian tribe. 

NAVAJO LAWS 

The Navajo Nation has passed its own laws governing labor, including the Navajo Preference in 

Employment Act (NPEA) that provides protection for its employees. It provides for rules on 

2Jd. 

3Jd. 

I'( 0111< I BOX /·HO \\'l"llO\\' 1\0( X \1 86';1'; I'll f'l2S! R'1l-71lll0 I\:\: (9281 S71 1025 
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 24757.013

preference in employment, wages, health and safety, appeals, hearings, etc. Navajo also has the 

system in place to handle disputes on those issues through an administrative appeals and judicial 

court system. A Navajo worker's right to join a union is protected pursuant to the NPEA under 15 

N.N.C. § 606, which states as follows: 

§ 606. Union and employment agency activities; rights of Navajo workers 

A. Subject to lawful provisions of applicable collective bargaining agreements, the basic 

rights of Navajo workers to organize, bargain collectively, strike, and peaceably picket 

to secure their legal rights shall not be abridged in any way by any person. The right to 

strike and picket does not apply to employees of the Navajo Nation, its agencies, or 

enterprises. 

B. It shall be unlawful for any labor organization, employer or employment agency to 

take any action, including action by contract, which directly or indirectly causes or 

attempts to cause the adoption or use of any employment practice, policy or decision 

which violates the Act. 

As a result, the Navajo tribal government has entered into three collective bargaining 

agreements under our Division of Public Safety, our Executive Branch, and our Head Start 

department. From my understanding, there are some private sector labor union agreements in 

place for employees on the Navajo Nation. 

Some Indian tribes have developed and passed right to work laws and that should be their 

prerogative. Navajo does not necessarily have explicit right to work laws, but whether an 

employee is required to join a union under a collective bargaining agreement has been 

determined by the vote of the employees. In two of our collective bargaining agreements, the 

employees voted to require employees of the units to join the union and pay fees. In the other 

agreement, the employees voted to make it voluntary. Again, each Indian tribe should be able to 

determine its own direction on labor issues. Therefore, we ask that unions work with tribes just 

like they do with the federal government and states, and recognize our tribal sovereignty. 

CONCLUSION 

Thank you for holding this hearing. Again, we support this legislation because it supports our 

sovereignty and self-determination. It will also greatly simplify and provide clarity to this issue. 

We appreciate the leadership of this subcommittee and we look forward to working with the 

Chairman and Ranking Member to pass this important legislation. Thank you. Ahehee'. 

P< lSI ( lllll -1 Ill J:\ 7·! +O 1\T\Il( J\\. R! I( X V 86';rr, l'l I (nRJ B7F7000 1.\\, l92ili 871 102'• 
25 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you, Delegate Brown. Mr. Gribbon, 

welcome, and you have five minutes of testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN GRIBBON, CALIFORNIA POLITICAL 

DIRECTOR, UNITEHERE! INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL–CIO 

Mr. GRIBBON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Jack 

Gribbon. I serve as the political director for UNITEHERE! in California. Our union represents hotel and casino workers in the 

United States and Canada, about 275,000, including 7,000 workers 

in tribal casinos in California. 

Accompanying me here today is Mary Elizabeth Carter, a member of UNITEHERE!, who is employed at the Cache Creek Casino 

and Resort owned by the Yocha Dehe Band of Wintun Indians in 

California. 

It is my hope to cover four points during my oral testimony. The 

first would be the importance of the National Labor Relations Act 

and the fundamental rights to free speech and free association. 

Second would be why tribal employers versus state and local government employers are not analogous. 

Third, Tribal Labor Relations Ordinances and their inadequacy 

absent the National Labor Relations Board, and then finally, the 

real life positive outcomes for workers and their families as the result of free expression and freedom of association. 

The importance of the NLRA jurisdiction: it is important to understand that the tribal gaming industry has become a $28 billion 

per year industry nationally. In California, it’s an $8 billion industry. The Las Vegas strip by example is a $6 billion a year industry. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been held not to 

apply to Indian tribes. The only way employees of tribal enterprises 

subject to harassment and other forms of discrimination may speak 

out about them with any degree of safety is through the NLRA. It 

is important to note that the decision of the NLRB under San 

Manuel was a measured decision. It would not interfere with tribal 

rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters. It would not 

abrogate rights guaranteed by treaty, and it would not be contrary 

to the congressional intent. 

Some argue that employees of tribal enterprises should be treated like employees of state and local governments. However, the National Indian Gaming Association has stated 75 percent of workers 

at tribal casinos are not members of the owner tribe, 75 percent of 

the workers nationally. In California, it’s much, much higher than 

that because we have tribes who have very small enrolled memberships, so it’s upwards of 85 to 90 percent of the workers are not 

members of the tribe. They cannot petition the government of the 

tribe. They cannot elect chairpersons or tribal members of the tribal Council. They do not have any influence over that. 

Contrary to that, local and state employees do. They have the 

right and they take advantage of that right, and they have protected their free speech rights and they have bargained over their 

wages and their benefits and other issues of employment with their 

employers, because they have the right to be involved politically 

with their government. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

26 

The 85 to 90 percent of the workers at tribal casinos in California do not have the right to do that in Indian Country, nor 

should they, because they are not enrolled members of the tribes. 

The other issue that we should talk about here is the inadequacy 

of the Tribal Labor Relations Ordinances. There are many Tribal 

Labor Relations Ordinances (TLRO) in compacts in California. 

There are six different ones, at least. I think there are more than 

six different ones, but at least six. 

There are examples of TLROs that are not neutral, nor do they 

implement free speech or free association rights, and in particular, 

the Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance implemented by the Saginaw 

Chippewa Tribe in Michigan prohibited employees from forming or 

joining a union. It was also a firing offense for any employee to solicit for any purpose in any place. 

Finally, my last point here is a real-life issue. Because of the 

rights that the NLRA provides for tribal casinos in California, and 

because of the work of our union and the organizing of the workers 

at those casinos, workers like Mary Elizabeth Carter, who is with 

me today, who has been working at Cache Creek since 2013, has 

been able to support her family, help her husband get through electrician’s school, keep her four children with health care, and put 

herself through school. That is because of the work that we have 

done, and that is what the real story is here in my view. 

[The statement of Mr. Gribbon follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 24757.014

Testimony of Jack Gribbon 

California Political Director, UNITEHERE! International Union, AFL-CIO 

Before the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee of the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce of the U.S. House of Representatives 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of2017 

March 29,2017 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testifY 

today. My name is Jack Gribbon. I serve as the Political Director for UNITEHERE! in 

California. Our union represents hotel and casino workers in the United States and Canada, 

including 7,000 workers in tribal casinos in California. Accompanying me here today is Mary 

Elizabeth Carter, a member of UNITE HERE!, who has been employed at the Cache Creek 

Casino and Resort owned by the Yocha Dehe Band ofWintun Indians since 2013. 

UNITEHERE!'s Involvement in the Tribal Gaming lndustrv 

After the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988, the tribal 

gaming industry in CA was, according to the federal government, operating 14,000 "illegal" 

Class III slot machines on Indian lands that the State did not have jurisdiction to regulate absent 

a Tribal/State Compact. The federal government had ordered a "stand down" and was 

threatening the closure of the existing tribal casinos and stopping the development of additional 

casinos, if the tribes and the state did not reach agreement on compact terms. 

In 1997 a number of Tribes in California who had been involved in Tribal/State Compact 

negotiations with then-Governor Pete Wilson's administration contacted UNITEHERE! for help. 

Some matters were controversial, and included, among other issues, workers' organizing rights 

under a Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance (TLRO) since the NLRB had not at that time asserted 

jurisdiction, as well as, local mitigation costs for infrastructure, police and fire, and other issues 

that some of theCA Tribes considered to be infringements on their sovereignty. UNITEHERE! 

.worked with our partners in Indian Country, including the Pala Band of Mission Indians, the 

Y ocha Dehe Band of Wintun Indians, the United Auburn Indian Community, the Jackson 

Rancheria and several others to help secure ratification of these compacts so that their operations 

would not be closed down or their opportunity to develop would not be impaired. We have 

continued to support those tribes who are amenable to workers' rights over the years including 

the Graton Rancheria, the North Fork Tribe, Los Coyotes, the Enterprise Rancheria, the Lytton 

Band of Porno Indians, Jamul and others. 

The Importance of NLRA Jurisdiction over Tribal Enterprises 

According to the National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA), the tribal gaming industry 

in the United States is a $28 billion per year enterprise. California's tribal casinos are an $8 

billion per year enterprise eclipsing the Las Vegas strip (at $6 billion per year). Absent a robust 

tribal labor ordinance with a neutral dispute resolution process, employees of tribal enterprises 

have few rights to free speech on the job absent NLRA jurisdiction. This becomes particularly 

acute when it comes to workplace discrimination, including harassment. Title VII of the Civil 

1 
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 24757.015

Rights Act of 1964 has been held not to apply to Indian tribes. Again, absent a robust tribal labor 

ordinance with a neutral dispute resolution process, the only way employees of tribal enterprises 

subject to harassment and other forms of discrimination may speak about them with any degree 

of safety is through the NLRA. 

It is important to note that the decision of the NLRB under San Manuel was a measured decision 

with the sovereign rights of tribes given consideration and respect. The San Manuel decision 

provides that the NLRA applies only wherein its application: 

I) Would not interfere with tribal rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters; 

2) abrogate rights guaranteed by treaty; or 

3) be contrary to congressional intent. 

Consistent with the three exceptions under San Manuel, the Board declined jurisdiction 

over an Oklahoma casino run by the Chickasaw tribe that was party to an 1830 treaty which 

exempts the tribe from nearly all federal laws. 

The NLRB also considers whether there are policy reasons to not to assert jurisdiction "to 

balance the Board's interest in effectuating the policies of the Act with its desire to accommodate 

the unique status oflndians in our society and legal culture." Thus, the Board has declined to 

exercise jurisdiction over tribal enterprises including a health clinic that served primarily tribal 

members in Alaska based on this policy consideration. 

However, the Board noted that the matter is different if a tribe is reaching out to 

participate in the national economy through a commercial enterprise employing many non-Indian 

employees, catering largely to non-Indians, and competing with non-Indian businesses. In that 

different circumstance, the balance of conflicting considerations favors Board jurisdiction, 

because the tribe's activity "affect[s] interstate commerce in a significant way." 

Most importantly, the NLRB is clear that it has no jurisdiction over internal tribal 

governmental matters, but only over the protection of free speech and the protected concerted 

activity of employees in commercial tribal enterprises. 

Tribal Employees vs. State and Local Government Employees 

Some argue that employees of tribal enterprises should be treated like employees of state 

and local governments and be exempt from the NLRA. This is fundamentally wrong. Employees 

of state and local governments have protected free speech rights. Moreover, they can, and have 

been successful, in organizing as citizens with the right to vote to impact their governments in 

their communities. 

The National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA) states that 75% of tribal gaming 

workers are not Native Americans (an estimated 150,000 nationally). In addition, when you 

include Native Americans who work in tribal casinos who are not members of the "owner tribe" 

the addition of"non-owner tribe" Native Americans increases the percentage to well over 85% 

of the work force who are not members of the owner tribe and can't (nor should they) have 

influence in internal tribal politics. In some cases, as few as I% of the workforce are members of 

the tribe operating a casino. Non tribal members can't petition or campaign or, in any way, 

2 
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 24757.016

influence internal tribal policies or elections, unlike state and local government employees. The 

only way that these workers who are not members of the owner tribe, but who are the engine 

behind these lucrative commercial businesses, have any rights to free speech and free 

association, is through the NLRA. 

The Inadequacy of the "TLRO" as Replacement for the NLRA 

Over the last 20 years of Tribal-State Compact negotiations in California, each 

administration from former Governor Pete Wilson's administration in the 1990s to Governor 

Jerry Brown's administration today, Tribal Labor Relations Ordinances have been negotiated in 

every compact. However, those TLROs are very different depending on which administration 

was part of the negotiations. There are at least 6 separate and distinct TLROs in Tribal-State 

compacts in the State. Some include binding arbitration for all disputes, including collective 

bargaining impasse. Many are much weaker and do not provide for binding arbitration for all 

disputes, and all of them provide that workers cannot strike or picket on tribal lands in order to 

resolve a dispute. Under Governor Gray Davis' administration, where the majority of tribes 

negotiated their existing TLROs, not one worker has been able to organize under those TLROs 

because of inherent weakness in the ordinance. In all cases, a labor organization will lose access 

to any of the terms of the TLRO, if it elects to resolve disputes through the NLRA. 

Currently, under casino gaming compacts between the State of California and tribal 

casinos with more than 250 employees, tribes must establish a Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance 

or TLRO. The TLRO inCA Qll!y applies to casino employees, and not all casino employees. 

There are many other tribal enterprises (mining, construction, sand and gravel, commercial 

farming, retail, etc.) that are non-gaming enterprises which not subject to compact negotiations 

and, H.R. 986 will deprive these workers of their current free speech and free association rights. 

There are examples ofTLROs that are not neutral nor do they implement free speech or 

free association rights. The Tribal Labor Ordinance previously implemented by the Saginaw 

Chippewa Tribe in Michigan prohibited employees from forming or joining a union. It was also a 

firing offense for any employee to solicit for any purpose in any place. 

Finally, with respect to the TLRO, should a new Governor in California decide to 

renegotiate Tribal/State Compacts and remove the current TLRO, the only way a worker would 

have protections for free expression and freedom of association on the job would be through the 

protections under the NLRA. 

A Real Life Story Regarding Outcomes for Workers at a Tribal Enterprise under 

Collective Bargaining. 

Mary Elizabeth Carter, who is with me today, has been working at the Cache Creek 

Casino and Resort owned by the Yocha Dehe Band ofWintun Indians since 2013. Because of 

the living wages and affordable family health care provided in the collective bargaining 

agreement between the Tribe and UNITEHERE!, Mary has been able to support her family 

during a period of her husband's unemployment when he was able to complete an electrician's 

apprenticeship. During that time she was also able to provide for their 3 children and also 

become the guardian of a "special needs" child while her husband was able to find full time 

employment as an electrician. Last year, Mary and her husband purchased a house for their 

family. 

3 
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 24757.017

This is what free speech and freedom of association is all about. It's about living wages, 

employer provided health care, caring for children. Meanwhile, the Yocha Dehe Band of Winton 

Indians, a tribe with less than 50 members and the employer of over 2,500 individuals who are 

not members of the tribe, has a very successful commercial casino. Mary's experience is similar 

to the experiences of thousands of workers inCA tribal casinos who have negotiated collective 

bargaining agreements providing good working class jobs that support their families' futures. 

Summary 

While UNITE HERE workers enjoy the protections of Tribal Labor Ordinances at a 

number of casinos, they rely upon the National Labor Relations Act as a backstop if a TLRO is 

weakened or not enforced. This could happen when or if a state-tribal compact is amended in the 

future. The elimination ofNLRA jurisdiction over tribal enterprises would undermine these 

collective bargaining agreements in tribal casinos and in many other commercial enterprises 

owned and operated by tribes in our country. 

In closing, I would note that the International Labour Organization (ILO) raised concern 

about the deprivation of internationally recognized labor rights for workers employed at tribal 

enterprises under the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. In its letter regarding the legislation 

introduced in the 1141

h Congress (which is the same as H.R. 986) the ILO stated: 

"While elements of indigenous peoples' sovereignty have been invoked by the 

proponents of this bill, the central question revolves around the manner in which the 

United States Government can best assure throughout its territory the full application of 

the fundamental principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining ... It is 

critical that the State (the national authority) takes ultimate responsibility for ensuring 

respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining throughout its territory." 

4 
31 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Gribbon. I recognize Chairman Welch for your five minutes of testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. WELCH, JR., CHAIRMAN, VIEJAS 

BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS 

Mr. WELSH. Good morning. My name is Robert Welch, Jr., I am 

chairman for the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians. Thank you for 

allowing me to testify today regarding H.R. 986 and its importance 

to our tribal members, employees, and tribal sovereignty. 

The Viejas Band owns and operates Viejas Casino & Resort, 

which is the source of 99 percent of the government revenue used 

to fund initial services and programs, including education, health, 

housing, and public safety. 

The Viejas Casino & Resort provides over 1,600 jobs to our wonderful employees and annually contributes millions of dollars to the 

local economy. Tribal gaming has made self-determination and economic self-sufficiency a reality for Viejas. 

H.R. 986 is about respecting the sovereignty of tribes and affirming that they possess the same power as federal, state, and local 

governments to regulate labor relations on sovereign lands. H.R. 

986 would reverse the NLRB’s overreach under its 2004 San 

Manuel decision, when it ignored 30 years of precedent to rule that 

the NLRA applies to Tribes. 

Opponents of H.R. 986 characterize the measure as anti-union 

and argue that the NLRA is essential to protect the rights of employees. That is not true, and the history of labor relations of 

Viejas shows why. 

Viejas would not be as successful without the good people who 

work for us, many of whom have been employees for over a decade. 

In August 1998, long before anyone believed the NLRA applied to 

tribes, Viejas entered into a voluntary election agreement in January 1999. CWA was elected as the bargaining representative for approximately 30 percent of the Viejas Casino & Resort workforce. 

Soon thereafter, a collective bargaining agreement was ratified. 

Every stage of the process, from organizing to contract ratification, reflected an intelligent sovereign decision by Viejas to capably 

regulate labor relations on its reservation. None of the procedures 

were compelled or forced upon Viejas. 

In September 1999, Viejas formally codified its labor relations 

law in the form of a Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance, TLRO, and 

has amended it since then with additional protections for employees and labor organizations. 

The TLRO is similar to the NLRA in that it includes access to 

elections, and unfair labor practice and dispute resolution provisions. It necessarily differs, however, in matters that are unique to 

Tribal gaming, including recognition of Indian hiring preference, 

the exclusion of certain employee classifications from organization, 

the ability to require a labor organization to secure a gaming license, and the resolution of labor disputes through binding arbitration. 

Substantially similar TLROs have been adopted by over 70 tribes 

in California and unions have spoken in support of the TLROs before the California legislature. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

32 

TLROs have worked for over 17 years. Unfortunately, Viejas’ sovereignty, TLRO, and employment practices are currently under attack by the NLRB. The old adage ‘‘no good deed goes unpunished’’ 

best describes the NLRB’s current enforcement action, which involves Viejas’ payment of bonuses to represented employees in December 2015, bonuses that Viejas had no obligation to pay at all. 

In early 2015, Viejas and the UFCW negotiated a collective bargaining agreement, and Viejas offered to include annual bonuses in 

the agreement, but UFCW rejected the offer, insisting instead upon 

larger annual wage increases. Ultimately, the ratified agreement 

contained wage increases but no bonuses. 

2015 was a more successful year for Viejas Casino & Resort than 

expected. Viejas was able to pay bonuses to its unrepresented employees as budgeted, but also wanted to reward its represented employees for a year’s success. Viejas decided to treat both groups of 

employees fairly. 

Since represented employees had already received their larger 

negotiated pay increases earlier in the year, paying them a gratuitous bonus meant Viejas needed to pay unrepresented employees 

an additional bonus amount in order to equalize overall annual 

compensation. 

Viejas’ reward for the discretionary bonus was a NLRB enforcement action, which Viejas has been defending for the past 14 

months at considerable expense. 

This case is now before the Board following an ALJ ruling that 

Viejas violated the NLRA. If the NLRB affirms the ruling, Viejas 

will be forced to seek review before the Ninth Circuit and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The passage of H.R. 986 would immediately halt NLRB intrusion 

into tribal labor relations, and would save money for the U.S. taxpayers and tribes from ongoing and future litigation. 

In conclusion, H.R. 986 is about protecting tribal sovereignty. 

Tribes have proven they can best develop laws to protect the rights 

of employees and also facilitate tribal government gaming operations and government services. 

They run just like federal, state, and local governments. The 

tribe should not be treated as second class citizens—second class 

governments, excuse me. I do believe freedom of speech is covered 

under the First Amendment. 

Viejas respectfully requests that Congress enact H.R. 986. Thank 

you for listening to my testimony today, and I stand ready to answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Welch follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 24757.018

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. WELCH, JR. 

CHAIRMAN, VIEJAS BAND OF KUMEYAA Y INDIANS 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR AND PENSIONS 

HEARING ON H.R. 986- "TRIBAL LABOR SOVEREIGNTY ACT OF 20 17" 

MARCH 29, 2017 

Good morning. My name is Robert Welch, Jr. and I serve as Chairman for the Viejas Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians (the "Viejas Band"), one of seven elected members of the Viejas Tribal 

Council. On behalf of the Viejas Band, I would like to thank you for allowing me to testify 

today regarding H.R. 986, the "Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of20 17". H.R. 986 is critical for 

the recognition of the sovereignty of Tribal Governments like Viejas, and would ensure that 

tribal governments are afforded the same dignity and respect as all other governments within the 

United States to make and be governed by their own labor laws tailored to the unique needs of 

their governments and employees. 

ABOUT THE VIEJAS BAND AND VIEJAS CASINO & RESORT 

The Viejas Band, one of the 12 remaining bands of the Kumeyaay Indian Nation, resides on a 

1,600-acre reservation in the Viejas Valley, east of the community of Alpine in San Diego 

County, California. The Kumeyaay people have lived in the San Diego County region for over 

I 0,000 years. Prior to the passage of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 

Act of 1975, the story of the Viejas Band, like that of many other tribes in California and 

throughout the nation, was one of struggle, resilience, and survival against genocide, 

enslavement, forced removal from ancestral lands, termination, assimilation, and extreme 

poverty. Following this critical shift towards Tribal self-determination, in 1976, the Viejas Band 

was able to secure funds in order to create its first Tribal enterprise: Ma TarAwa RV Park. 

While the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 helped start Tribes 

on a path towards rebuilding their governments, the revenue producing opportunities it created 

were not substantial enough to promote economic self-sufficiency, and most Tribes still relied 

heavily on federal funding to support their governments. And without a sizeable population base 

to generate tax revenue, Tribes desperately needed a mechanism, under their control, to generate 

1 
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 24757.019

meaningful government revenue and control their own destinies. That is where Tribal 

government gaming stepped in. 

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Cabazon 1

, the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

of 19882 ("lORA"), and the execution of Tribal-State gaming compacts recognized and preserved 

the rights of Tribes to utilize government gaming to generate critical revenue, in the same way 

that many States earn substantial revenues through government-operated lotteries. 

Today the Viejas Band proudly owns and operates Viejas Casino & Resort, which is the primary 

source of revenue for the Viejas Tribal Government. The revenues generated by Viejas Casino 

& Resort fund the types of essential governmental departments, services, and programs that 

many non-Indians take for granted, such as education, health, housing, water, roads, fire, and 

public safety. In addition, Viejas Casino & Resort provides over 1,600 jobs to the local 

community, including employment opportunities for citizens of the Viejas Band, annually 

contributes millions of dollars to the local economy through the purchase of goods and services, 

and is a proud supporter of many charitable organizations throughout San Diego County. 

Tribal government gaming has been a success story for the Viejas Band and our local 

community. It has made self-determination and economic self-sufficiency a reality, and is 

essential to the continued prosperity of the Viejas Band and its people. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND INDIAN TRIBES 

The National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") was first enacted in 1935. At that time, Indian 

tribes around the country were trying to recover from the devastating impacts of allotment. The 

NLRA was intended to provide collective bargaining rights to employees of large corporations. 

For that reason, most governments were exempted from the NLRA, including the United States, 

states, and local governments. Unfortunately, Indian tribes had almost no employees, as all 

government and enterprise operations were handled by the Bureau of Indian affairs, thus, the 

thought of including Tribal governments in the list of exempted governments did not occur to the 

drafters of the NLRA. This oversight, however, was handled administratively by the National 

Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"). 

Underpinning the exemption for governments in the NLRA was an acknowledgment that 

governments have significantly different considerations in how they handle their business when 

compared to private enterprises. Governments are not driven by pure profit motive; rather, they 

are driven by the responsibilities and authorities given them by their citizens. To best meet those 

responsibilities and exercise those authorities, governments need flexibility. Thus the NLRA left 

it to governments to determine what laws would best govern their employee relations. 

Tribal governments are no different. The operations and enterprises of a Tribal government, 

even those that raise revenues, are not driven by purely profit motives, but by the responsibility 

to deliver services and meet the present and future needs of its citizens. Ultimately, it is the 

sovereign responsibility of a Tribal government to determine how it can best deliver services and 

meet the needs of its people. 

1 California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987). 

'25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. 

2 
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 24757.020

Gaming, whether through private commercial operations like Las Vegas casinos, or through 

governmental operations like Tribal gaming under IGRA or state lotteries, is a unique business 

that requires significant regulation and oversight. The unique regulatory and oversight needs of 

the business led to enactment ofiGRA by the U.S. Congress, promulgation of significant 

regulations by the National Indian Gaming Commission, and enactment of a substantial body of 

Tribal law and regulation. Subsequent interactions with state governments has further led to the 

numerous Tribal-State compacts adopted around the country. To adequately address all of these 

laws, regulations, and agreements, while at the same time developing a well-trained, educated, 

and happy workforce, Tribal governments need great flexibility. 

The Viejas Band's history in Tribal government gaming is a great example in how these 

sometimes conflicting responsibilities can be reconciled by careful consideration, balancing of 

interests, and great flexibility. 

H.R. 986 AND THE NLRB DECISION IN SAN MANUEL 

H.R. 986, as its title suggests, is about respecting and protecting the sovereignty of Tribal 

governments. It is about affirming that Tribal governments possess the same powers as the 

federal government, states and local governments, to govern labor relations on sovereign lands. 

H.R. 986 would reverse the NLRB's improper and about-face change in policy in the 2004 San 

Manuel decision3

, when the NLRB ignored thirty years of precedent to rule, for the first time, 

that the NLRA applies to Tribal governments. Finally, H.R. 986 would set the record straight, 

once and for all, regarding Congress' intent as to the exemption of Tribal governments from the 

NLRA. As sovereign governments engaged in economic activities essential to fund government 

services, Tribes, such as the Viejas Band, should enjoy the same exempt status as the United 

States, State governments, and their government business. If exemption is appropriate for state 

lotteries, it should be for Tribal governments too. 

THE VIEJAS BAND AS AN EMPLOYER 

Opponents ofH.R. 986 will likely characterize this measure as "anti-union". They will also 

likely suggest that imposition of the NLRA upon Tribal governments is essential to protect the 

rights of non-tribal member employees. But the voluntary actions of the Viejas Band, and many 

other Tribal governments across the U.S., fundamentally expose the fallacy of those myths. 

As one of the largest employers in east San Diego County, the Viejas Band takes its role as an 

employer very seriously. The Viejas Band recognizes the key role that all of its employees play 

in the growth, success, and well-being ofViejas Casino & Resort, and by extension the Viejas 

Band itself. That is why the Viejas Band continually strives to treat all of its employees fairly 

and with respect. The Viejas Band provides its employees with competitive salaries and great 

benefits, including health, dental, and vision insurance, basic life insurance, a 401 (k) program 

with employer matching, a college tuition reimbursement program, a robust wellness program 

with fitness club dues reimbursement, and paid leave and vacation, to name a few. The Viejas 

Band treats its employees well because it is the right thing to do, not because it has been 

compelled to do so by some federal or state laws or agencies. 

'San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino, 341 N.L.R.B 1055 (2004). 

3 
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 24757.021

THE HISTORY OF UNION ORGANIZING AT VIEJAS CASINO & RESORT 

The history of labor organization at Viejas Casino & Resort is a striking example of why the 

application of the NLRA is unnecessary for Tribal governments, in the same way it is 

unnecessary for federal, state, and local governments. 

In August 1998-long before anyone, including the NLRB, believed the NLRA should be 

applied to Tribal governments-the Viejas Band entered into a voluntary election agreement 

with Communications Workers of America ("CWA"), to provide access to service employees 

working at Viejas Casino & Resort for purposes of organizing. The voluntary election 

agreement provided for an election trigger (union authorization cards signed by 30% of the 

service employees) and a secret ballot election process supervised by an independent arbitrator. 

In January 1999, a secret ballot election occurred and CWA was certified as the bargaining 

representative for approximately 30% of the Viejas Casino & Resort workforce. Shortly 

thereafter, the Viejas Band and CWA commenced negotiating the first collective bargaining 

agreement. The negotiation process concluded in October 1999, with the Viejas Band and 

members of the CWA ratifying a first of its kind collective bargaining agreement between a 

Tribal government and a labor organization in the State of California. 

Every stage of the process, from organizing activity to ratification of a collective bargaining 

agreement, reflected a choice made by the Viejas Band in the exercise of its sovereignty as a 

Tribal government. None of those procedures were compelled or forced upon the Viejas Band. 

And each stage started and concluded without the involvement of the NLRB or the application of 

theNLRA. 

The Viejas Band's exercise of its sovereignty demonstrates why Tribal governments should be 

empowered to exercise sovereignty in labor relations, rather than have it stripped away by 

federal laws or agencies. The Viejas Band's actions were received positively by its represented 

employees, other Tribes, and other labor organizations. In fact, a few months after the 

ratification of the historic collective bargaining agreement, the Viejas Band was honored by the 

San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO, at its 12th annual Worker's Memorial 

Dinner with its Spirit of Cooperation Award. 

THE TRIBAL LABOR RELATIONS ORDINANCE 

On September 14, 1999, the Viejas Band passed its own law governing labor relations: a Tribal 

Labor Relations Ordinance (the "TLRO"). The TLRO, like similar voluntarily adopted state 

laws addressing labor relations for government agencies, contains numerous provisions that are 

similar to the NLRA, including detailed procedures for representation proceedings, a guarantee 

of rights to engage in concerted activity, enumeration of unfair labor practices by Tribes and 

unions, and procedures for secret ballot elections and union decertification. The TLRO, 

however, also diverges from the NLRA in matters that are unique to Tribal government gaming, 

including the recognition of an Indian hiring preference, the exclusion of certain employee 

classifications from organization (such as Tribal Gaming Commission employees), the ability for 

4 
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 24757.022

a Tribal Gaming Commission to require a labor organization to secure a gaming license, and the 

resolution of any labor disputes through binding arbitration before an independent Tribal Labor 

Panel (rather than the NLRB). The Viejas Band amended its TLRO in November 2016 to 

provide additional protections to employees and labor organizations. 

Over 70 other Tribal governments in California have adopted their own, substantially similar, 

TLROs. The TLROs have worked well for over 17 years, have been publically praised by 

California labor union representatives speaking before the California legislature, and would 

continue to be undermined by NLRB interference ifH.R. 986 were not passed. 

THE UNRESOLVED IMPACTS OF SAN MANUEL ON THE TLRO AND IGRA 

During its 14 years as the bargaining representative, CW A never once challenged the TLRO, or 

attempted to invoke action by the NLRB against the Viejas Band. But that changed in August 

2014, when a represented employee filed a petition before the NLRB to decertify the CW A as 

the bargaining representative pursuant to the NLRA. The NLRB asserted that it had jurisdiction 

over the decertification election in light of the San Manuel decision and did not agree that the 

TLRO decertification procedures controlled. In addition, Viejas was informed that a majority of 

the represented employees had signed on to the decertification petition, such that the Viejas Band 

would alienate hundreds of employees if it objected to the NLRB process. It was a no-win 

situation, under which the Viejas Band was essentially compelled to agree to NLRB jurisdiction 

to avoid expensive litigation concerning NLRB jurisdiction and thereby angering its employees 

with the delay it would cause. The Viejas Band reluctantly stipulated to the NLRB election. 

Through the NLRB election process, a new and previously unknown union, the United Food and 

Commercial Workers Local 135 ("UFCW"), was allowed to intervene at the eleventh hour and 

was added to the election ballot, which would not have been permitted under the TLRO. During 

the "campaign" process immediately preceding the election, the NLRB notified the Viejas Band 

that it was required to comply with the NLRA election procedures. Through the election, the 

UFCW was selected as the new representative for represented employees at Viejas Casino & 

Resort. The UFCW was certified by the NLRB as the bargaining unit representative on 

September 30, 2014. Shortly thereafter, the UFCW and the Viejas Band commenced collective 

bargaining. The UFCW commenced negotiations under the NLRA, whereas the Viejas Band 

commenced negotiations under the TLRO, and problems immediately arose. 

Due to the differences between the TLRO and the NLRA, there was substantial disagreement on 

certain issues addressed by the TLRO, including the ability for the Viejas Tribal Gaming 

Commission to require the UFCW to secure a gaming license. In contrast to CW A, the UFCW 

refused to be licensed and filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. The Viejas 

Band, of course, objected to the jurisdiction of the NLRB and contested the unfair labor practice 

charge on the merits. 

Fortunately, in March 2015, and prior to the NLRB issuing any decision, Viejas and the UFCW 

were able to complete negotiations on a collective bargaining agreement and temporarily resolve 

their differences, including UFCW's voluntary agreement to licensure by the Viejas Tribal 

Gaming Commission. But the collective bargaining agreement remains silent as to whether the 

5 
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 24757.023

TLRO or the NLRA governs labor relations for Viejas Casino & Resort, which created an 

environment ripe for future jurisdictional disputes between the NLRA and the TLRO. 

The San Manuel decision also clearly conflicts with lORA creating even more uncertainty. The 

Viejas Band's TLRO is an indisputably sovereign act adopted pursuant to the Viejas Band's 

compact with the state of California. The D.C. Circuit, in its opinion in San Manuel, observed 

that the enactment of a TLRO, and the negotiation of a gaming compact under lORA, are 

governmental acts. The Viejas-California Compact was approved by the United States Secretary 

of the Interior, as required by lORA. And the plain language of lORA recognizes that gaming 

operations are governmental activities of Tribes and identifies gaming on tribal lands as "a 

means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency and strong tribal 

governments." 25 U.S. C.§ 2702(1). Against this background, the San Manuel decision 

fundamentally negates two sovereign acts by the Viejas Band: the Tribal State Compact and 

TLRO, which were specifically adopted by the Viejas Band, approved by and the State of 

California, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior, in accordance with lORA. 

The uncertainty and continued threat ofNLRB intrusion into tribal governance undermines the 

ability of a tribal government, like the Viejas Band, to carry out its ultimate responsibility to 

deliver essential government services and meet the present and future needs of its citizens. 

NLRB V. VIEJAS BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS- CASE No. 21-CA-166290 

The old adage "no good deed goes unpunished" is an apt characterization of the current 

encroachment by the NLRB upon the sovereignty of the Viejas Band. Through the improper 

assertion of jurisdiction by the NLRB, the Viejas Band has been forced to defend an enforcement 

action arising out of the Viejas Band's payment of bonuses to represented employees in 

December 2015, which were bonuses that the Viejas Band had no obligation to pay at all. 

During collective bargaining in January 2015, the Viejas Band and UFCW negotiated 

compensation for represented employees. The Viejas Band informed UFCW that it intended to 

pay year-end bonuses to unrepresented employees if Viejas Casino & Resort financially 

performed to budget during 2015. The Viejas Band offered to structure bonuses into the 

collective bargaining agreement as well. UFCW rejected annual bonuses and insisted upon 

larger annual percentage wage increases instead. Consequently, the parties reached a collective 

bargaining agreement that contained the annual wage compensation structure preferred by 

UFCW, and contained no requirement for the Viejas Band to pay any bonuses to represented 

employees. 

Fortunately, 2015 was a financially successful year for Viejas Casino & Resort. At year end, the 

Viejas Band was able to pay bonuses to its unrepresented employees as budgeted. Due to the 

financial success, the Viejas Band was also in a position to pay bonuses to its represented 

employees so that all of its employees could share in the success. One challenge the Viejas Band 

had to address, however, was structuring bonuses. The Viejas Band want to treat both groups of 

employees fairly, so the Viejas Band decided to structure bonus amounts in order to equalize the 

overall annual compensation increase received by represented and unrepresented employees 

during 2015. Because represented employees received a high percentage wage increase earlier 

6 
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 24757.024

in 2015, the Viejas Band paid a lesser bonus to its represented employees, and thereby equalized 

overall year-over-year employee compensation increases for 2015. The Viejas Band determined 

that paying a lesser bonus was better for its represented employees than adhering to the terms of 

the collective bargaining agreement and paying no bonus at all. 

The Viejas Band notified UFCW of its decision to pay a bonus immediately before it was 

announced to all employees, and three days before it was to be paid. UFCW had the opportunity 

during those three days to object to the bonus or demand negotiation. It did neither. 

Instead, UFCW waited until after the bonuses were paid and then filed charges with the NLRB 

alleging that the Viejas Band engaged in discriminatory unfair labor practices under the NLRA. 

UFCW completely disregarded the TLRO. 

During the past 14 months, the Viejas Band has been defending against the NLRB's enforcement 

action at considerable expense, including contesting the NLRB'sjurisdiction, responding to 

NLRB subpoenas requiring the production of multiple government records, participating in a 

multi-day trial before an NLRB administrative law judge ("ALl"), and drafting numerous trial 

briefs and exceptions challenging the ALJ' s adverse ruling. 

The NLRB has not yet taken any further action on the ALl's ruling, but if it affirms the ruling, 

the Viejas Band will be forced to commit additional government resources over the next several 

years to have the ruling reviewed by the Ninth Circuit and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The passage ofH.R. 986, however, would immediately end the NLRB's meddling in the tribal 

governance of the Viejas Band, would restore the sovereignty ofthe Viejas Band and its labor 

laws, and would save U.S. taxpayers and tribal governments from the substantial legal costs of 

ongoing and future actions by the NLRB against tribal governments. Moreover, it would 

reaffirm the power of the Viejas Band to look out for the best interests of all of its employees 

consistent with the Viejas Band's tribal law (the TLRO). 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, H.R. 986 is about protecting Tribal sovereignty. The Viejas Band and other 

Tribes across the nation serve as key examples of how Tribal governments, when allowed to 

exercise their sovereignty, are capable of developing laws that protect the rights of workers 

within a fair framework, while continuing to meet the strict regulatory needs of their gaming 

enterprises. The Viejas Band believes that its agreement with the State of California, and its 

adoption of the TLRO, should be respected. The NLRA and NLRB should have no application 

or role in labor relations upon the Viejas reservation. 

The Viejas Band respectfully requests that Congress enact H.R. 986 and reaffirm that Tribal 

governments possess the same status as the federal government, states and their political 

subdivisions. This is not an issue to be left for the courts decide what Congress "intended". 

H.R. 986 should set the record straight, once and for all, regarding Congress' intent to exempt 

Tribal governments and their government enterprises from the NLRA. Thank you. 

7 
40 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you, Chairman. I thank each of the 

witnesses for doing pretty well in keeping to the time frame. That 

is not always the case here. 

Now, I have the privilege to recognize the chairwoman of the 

Full Education and the Workforce Committee, Dr. Foxx. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses today, and I also want to thank Mr. Rokita for introducing 

this bill and for the bipartisan support that he has obtained for it. 

Delegate Brown, at its core, this bill is about protecting the sovereign rights of Indian Nations. It is about protecting Native Americans from special interests who are less concerned about the sovereign rights of tribal members and more concerned with expanding union membership and filling union coffers. 

Some of those special interests claim that the workers affected 

are generally not tribal members. At Navajo enterprises, are most 

of the workers Navajo? Also, in your experience, are most unions 

run and staffed by members of the Navajo Nation? 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, for the question. The 

unions, the Navajo Nation enterprises, the Navajo Nation Tribe, 

the majority of our employees are Navajo. For the sovereignty and 

for the union, our employees are protected with unions, and we 

also have ‘‘for cause’’ requirements for disciplinary actions. This is 

how our employees are protected. 

In meeting with some of the unions last week, they appreciate 

the function and the protection of the unions within the Navajo Nation. Thank you. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. Chairman Welch, I am also 

concerned about the same way the organizations opposing this bill 

are misrepresenting how these commercial enterprises operate, as 

well as have the revenue they generate or utilize. 

Chairman Welch, it is my understanding that tribes use the revenues from their businesses to support core services provided by 

the tribal governments, such as public safety and infrastructure. 

How are revenues from your government owned businesses used 

by the Viejas? 

Mr. WELSH. We use the money we receive to fund our government programs, such as health, education, and fire departments, 

whatever we need to do on the reservation. Also, we are very generous on donating money to the surrounding communities, especially the Town of Alpine, the schools that our children go to. 

It’s very important for us as Indian people to give back. There 

was a time when we were very, very poor, and we have a history 

of giving. So, when we were blessed with money, we made sure the 

surrounding community was taken care of, which is very interesting, because in Alpine—my mother was born in 1940. She went 

to public schools in Alpine. They had, as in the South, processed 

drinking water for Indians and white people, and that didn’t deter 

us when we made money. 

We decided that the Town of Alpine was our partner, and we 

have funded a lot of their Kiwanis Clubs, et cetera. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady, and now I recognize 

the ranking member, Mr. Sablan. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I serve on another committee that also has oversight over Native Americans, 

Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians, and the Territories. In this 

committee, we recently had a hearing on the state of Indian 

schools, BIE schools. 

I agree that you need all the money you can to upgrade the education and health services provided to your people. I do not disagree with that. 

Let me ask, Mr. Gribbon, if I may, if H.R. 986 was enacted, are 

there any provisions that would prevent tribes from weakening or 

eliminating their existing labor laws? 

Mr. GRIBBON. No. However, there’s a couple of different issues 

here. One is that the existing collective bargaining agreements are 

not throughout all of tribal casinos in California, or across the 

country, nor are they in place in a variety of other industries, like 

mining, in some places. 

Without the NLRA, the National Labor Relations Act, which 

would be exempted by this bill, H.R. 986, without that, there’s not 

the incentive to work out these Tribal Labor Relations Ordinances, 

in my view, and in my experience. 

Then again, some of these Tribal Labor Relations Ordinances 

have led to collective bargaining agreements that increased wages 

and benefits for workers, that have worked well in partnership 

with tribes that we work with. 

Some of them are not adequate, like the one I mentioned from 

the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Some of them, like the majority of 

them in California, are extremely weak, ones that were negotiated 

in 1999 by the Gray Davis Administration, then-Governor Gray 

Davis, not one worker has organized under those TLROs. 

So, without it, without the NLRA, there isn’t a continued ability 

to be able to improve TLROs, and moreover, every time there’s a 

new governor, you know, it depends on who he or she is, what kind 

of position they’re going to take with respect to that part of the 

compact. 

Mr. SABLAN. So, without the National Labor Relations Act, there 

is really no backstop of protection for workers is what you are saying? 

Mr. GRIBBON. It’s an absolute foundation. 

Mr. SABLAN. Let me ask the witnesses, if I could just get a yes 

or no answer, I would appreciate it, the witnesses who are here to 

support the bill, are you saying that for the sovereignty of Indian 

Country, the National Labor Relations Act should not apply because of the sovereignty? Is that across the board or just for your 

tribes? For your individual tribes? Yes, across the board or just for 

your Tribe? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Yes. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes to which one, just your tribe, or do you speak 

for all Native Americans? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. The National Congress of American Indians advocates for 567 Tribal Nations, and we have three conferences a 

year, and at those conferences, we have an opportunity to pass resolutions. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

One of the resolutions that was passed unanimously, and we are 

a consensus organization, was to support this legislation, so that’s 

where our marching orders come from. 

Mr. SABLAN. Because you as a tribe are sovereign? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Yes. 

Mr. SABLAN. So, why is it there are tribes with casinos who go 

to great length and extent to deny tribes without casinos a license? 

Are they not also sovereign tribes that you represent today? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Denied a license? 

Mr. SABLAN. Denied a casino license. They come to Congress and 

lobby. Are they not as sovereign as each one of you here? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Yes. 

Mr. SABLAN. Then why do you lobby Congress to deny them a casino license? Why can they not get the same thing you have? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, Congressman. 

Mr. WELSH. May I try? 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes, please. I do not have much time, but please. 

Mr. WELSH. It all depends on the situation. In California, if 

they’re trying to do off reservation gaming, then I can see why 

other tribes would try to stop them from getting licensure, because 

that’s not what’s in the compact or what the state voted for, what 

California voted for. 

As for H.R. 986, I cannot speak for any other tribe in the United 

States other than my own, if I was able to, I would say yes, but 

it is a yes for my tribe. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman’s 

time has expired. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. 

Chairman Cladoosby, your testimony mentions that the National 

Congress of American Indians is the oldest, largest, most represented tribal government organization in the Nation. Suffice it to 

say the NCAI represents a wide variety of tribal governments, and 

on a wide range of issues. 

On the question of tribal sovereignty and assertion of jurisdiction 

by the National Labor Relations Board over tribal commercial operations, let me ask you, is there a consensus among your members, 

even beyond what you just alluded to in the previous answer? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Yes, definitely so. You know, in a nutshell, we 

didn’t ask for this relationship with Congress, we inherited it. 

Every one of you Congressmen sitting up there— 

Chairman WALBERG. Some of us have inherited it, too. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Yes. We both inherited this relationship, and 

you are our trustee. We’ve always been recognized, even in the 

Constitution, as sovereigns, and that’s all we want to be recognized 

as. I can’t imagine if the NLRB took any of the other 90,000 governments and told them they no longer are protected by this, they 

have to abide by different rules, what kind of rush to this hearing 

you would have. 

We just want to be treated as sovereigns, as other governments. 

We’ve heard it loud and clear from our membership at NCAI, and 

we’re an organization that advocates for tribes, and they give us 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

our marching orders through resolutions, to come here to let you 

know that we wholeheartedly support H.R. 986. 

Chairman WALBERG. These are long-standing hard fought battles 

over the decades and decades as well that we are dealing with here 

in the issue of sovereignty. I appreciate that. 

Delegate Brown, I understand the Navajo Nation hosts private 

sector businesses like defense contractors and mining operations on 

your lands that employ a good number of Navajo citizens. Could 

you tell us about these in a little bit of detail? 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, for your question. 

With some of the private sector, including Peabody, SRP and such, 

they currently have unions where they are protected, and they 

enjoy this protection. It creates a voice for them within the Navajo 

Nation. 

Chairman WALBERG. So, you are not creating union free zones in 

these cases? 

Mr. BROWN. No. 

Chairman WALBERG. Those are private entities that have the 

good opportunity to work, to the benefit of both, Navajo Nation as 

well as their own interests, and unions are afforded that opportunity? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes. 

Chairman WALBERG. I just wanted to get that point, this bill 

does not create union free zones, neither do your efforts and involvements with these private sector contractors, et cetera. Thank 

you. 

Chairman Welch, you spoke about costly litigation under the 

NLRA. Can you expand on how tribal enterprises which provide 

funds for tribal government services are threatened by long, drawn 

out litigation under the NLRA, and also, how this differs from your 

previous Tribal Labor Relations Ordinances? 

Mr. WELSH. Because we have to go through the NLRB process, 

which is kind of expensive for us, and we have done all our research on NLRA and NLRB for the judgments. It seems like they 

always favor the unions. 

So, if that happens, we have the right to appeal, and for the appeal, we have to go up the ladder, which will cost us significant dollars that could be spent on our tribe and for whatever we need to 

provide a better lifestyle for our members, and also could affect the 

team members who work for us. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. Now, I recognize the gentleman 

from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Thank you, Chairman, appreciate the time, and 

certainly bringing this issue to light. I find it fascinating going 

through the different laws that we passed over the years that do 

apply. 

I would like to start my questioning with the Honorable Brian 

Cladoosby. This issue you find offensive to the sovereign nation, 

and I can understand what you are saying. The Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, they apply to you. Do you feel that is also an attack on your sovereignty? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for the 

question. Yes, as sovereign nations, there are still certain things 

that we have to abide by when it comes to federal law, not state 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

law, but when it comes to holding us to a different standard, you 

have governments in your districts, and if those governments were 

treated differently by the NLRA, you would hear it loud— 

Mr. NORCROSS. I understand. Why is this more offensive to you 

than let’s say ERISA, that protects pensions and retirements? Why 

is this more offensive? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Treated differently. We are a government. I 

think all the members up here would recognize that we are 

sovereigns, we are nations, we are governments. 

Mr. NORCROSS. I understand that. Why is this different than all 

the others that apply to you, and why are you not trying to change 

those also? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. We would love to. We would love to be treated 

as true sovereigns, to be self-sustaining, to be under the arm of a 

paternalistic form of government that was placed upon us over the 

last 200 years, but unfortunately, you know, that is not going to 

happen. 

Mr. NORCROSS. I understand. We have both inherited this. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Yes. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Decisions made by people who came before us 

puts us into a position. When the NLRA was first passed, I do not 

think we had the issue before you of having tens of thousands of 

employees working for casinos. It is a very different world now. 

So, Mr. Gribbon, let me ask you, why is this different? Is this the 

traditional conversation we have, employer versus employee? Is 

that why this is different? 

Mr. GRIBBON. Well, it seems that way to me, but one of the 

issues that I think is important to understand here, the Kaiser 

Family Foundation has put out a report, separate and apart from 

anything that my union has proposed, and contrary—I shouldn’t go 

there. The bottom line is the average difference per year for a casino worker in California, depending upon whether they are union 

or not union, is about $8,000 a year. 

Now, these are very, very successful casinos, and very successful 

casinos in California, an $8 billion a year industry, but workers 

standing up for supporting their families with health care and with 

decent wages, it does have a cost, it does have a financial cost. It’s 

one they deserve to be able to struggle for. 

Mr. NORCROSS. So, what I am hearing is it is a cost issue for the 

employee, and I heard great things about what the profits go for, 

certainly things that we all care about. 

Delegate Brown, I appreciate you had card checks for many of 

the unions that operated it on you. Why is this different for you 

than it is for all the other casinos? Is it because the percentage of 

employees are actual tribal members? 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Norcross, for your question. With 

Navajo, yes, the majority of the employees are Navajo. 

Mr. NORCROSS. They get card check recognition. You have a 

higher percentage, you gave them card check; you have a very low 

percentage, and you tend to fight it. Help me rectify that in my 

mind, why that would be two different ways. 

Mr. BROWN. Could you repeat the question? 

Mr. NORCROSS. You have card check where you recognize the 

rights of the employees to have a voice. In California, what I am 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

45 

hearing is where there is a very low percentage of members who 

work there, the tribe tends to fight this much more vigorously. 

Why is that? Is it because it is the percentage of tribal members 

that work at the casino that drives that decision? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes. Again, the number of employees with the Navajo Nation, basically our laws protect the workers under the Navajo Nation Equal Employment Act. I don’t know about other tribes. 

Mr. NORCROSS. I see my time is running out. I yield back. Thank 

you. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the 

immediate past chairman of this subcommittee, the gentleman 

from Tennessee, Dr. Roe. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since 1832, the Supreme 

Court has held that Native American tribes retain inherent powers 

of self-government. I just looked up ‘‘sovereignty.’’ It says ‘‘The authority of a State to govern itself.’’ 

What these tribes are looking for is parity, the same as any other 

state and local government. That is all they are asking for. It is 

not complicated. It was mentioned about how many billion dollars 

in the industry, thank goodness that the Indian tribes have lived 

in poverty for so many years and now have some resources to help 

the people they represent. 

I know exactly what that is like. They represent their people and 

their tribe and their government just like I represent the people in 

my government. 

So, thank you for what you do, and I think this is an assault on 

liberty when you try to have a big federal government tell a tribal 

government what to do. 

I am going to start by just asking a couple of questions. First, 

Chairman Cladoosby, many federal labor laws specifically exclude 

Indian tribes from the definition of ‘‘employer.’’ Is there any mention of Indian tribes in NLRA, and if the act is solid, what theory 

has the NLRA applied to jurisdiction over tribes? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. That is a real good question, Mr. Roe, because 

for 70 years, we were exempted, and then in 2004—once again, 

thank you for recognizing the impact that Tribes are now having 

on the local economy. In some places, we’re the largest employers 

in our counties. 

We just want to be recognized as a government like the other 

governments. The gentleman asked about OSHA, the difference is 

a federal third party, a union, being forced on the tribes is really 

a big issue that I wanted to address with that gentleman also. 

Thank you for that question. 

Mr. ROE. Delegate Brown, could you further elaborate on the size 

and scope of the Navajo government? Do you have courts, legislative branch, other government functions that a private employer 

would not have? What role do tribal enterprises play in maintaining these operations? 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for your question, sir. Within Navajo Nation, we have over 300,000 members, this is on and off the Navajo 

Nation. Again, we are a mirror to the federal government. We do 

have a legislative, judicial, and executive branch. Within judicial, 

we do have a court system. We have our Labor Relations Office, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

46 

and we also have the Navajo Nation labor relations laws that protect our people. 

Mr. ROE. We should respect that. How do Navajo employee 

wages and benefits compare to local averages where you live and 

govern? 

Mr. BROWN. Within Navajo Nation, we still have a high unemployment rate. However, some of the wages are comparable, and we 

do have a good medical package, and I think that’s where we try 

to make up for some of the low wages in some areas, but they’re 

pretty comparable otherwise. 

Mr. ROE. As a leader of one of the largest tribal governments, 

what does sovereignty mean to you and your people? 

Mr. BROWN. Sovereignty is to govern ourselves as we have our 

ways of life, and we understand that today, the way any government would function is with money. Slowly, we would like to be 

completely sovereign, to have our say, to have our stance, and we 

would like to be respected the way the United States federal government is. 

Mr. ROE. I was a mayor before I came here, mayor of my local 

city, 65,000 people. I think you just want to be treated the same 

way and operate the same way I was when I was mayor of Johnson 

City, Tennessee. I think that is what I am hearing and what I read 

in this bill, in Mr. Rokita’s bill, which I wholeheartedly support. 

One last question to Mr. Cladoosby, if you can. You spoke about 

the possibility of unions interfering in tribal politics and elections. 

A single union could end up representing a large portion of tribal 

voters. How would unions under NLRA jurisdiction have an even 

greater ability to interfere with Tribal elections than unions under 

Tribal labor laws? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Once again, I want to make it very clear that 

we’re not anti-union. The unions, they fulfill a very, very important 

role in the United States, and they have since its creation. 

We just want to make sure that as sovereigns, we’re able to treat 

our employees the best that we can, enact the laws that we need 

to protect our employees, and I believe every Tribal government 

does that. 

We have witnessed outside interference in our homelands since 

the non-Indian came into this beautiful country, the greatest country in the world. We’ve been dealing with that ever since. 

So, we view this as just one more attempt by the federal government to allow a third party to come into a sovereign, something 

that you don’t allow for your city, your former city, any of your cities, where you guys come from. You have a system set up, a government set up, and we just want to be treated like that government. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, 

and I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the 

gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wilson. 

Ms. WILSON of Florida. Thank you, Chairman Walberg and 

Ranking Member Sablan, and our Ranking Member Scott. 

I want to thank our witnesses for sharing your perspectives with 

us. It is important for us to hear from you so that we will know 

how to best move forward in our endeavors. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

47 

I would like to thank all of my colleagues here today, and I 

strongly support the sovereignty of the Native American Nations. 

I believe we need to promote their rights to self-governance, as well 

as their independence. 

However, I also strongly believe in the rights of workers to organize, and to be able to work in a safe environment. This includes 

Native American workers and non-Native Americans that work in 

tribal enterprises. Congress should not favor one at the expense of 

the other. 

That said, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill in its present 

form before us today, since it would severely harm workers’ rights 

by stripping hundreds of thousands of workers employed at Indian 

owned tribal enterprises of their voice in the workplace, and deny 

protections for them under the National Labor Relations Act. 

I want to direct my question to Mr. Jack Gribbon, political director for UNITEHERE! Why do you oppose H.R. 986, and explain to 

us why it is important not to eliminate NLRA as a backstop even 

where you have a Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance? 

Mr. GRIBBON. Congresswoman, thank you very much for the 

question. It’s important because the NRLA is the foundation and 

the only foundation on federal lands for the ability for a worker to 

have the right of free speech and free association. 

It has also created the incentive for workers and tribes to come 

together and work out additional avenues of reaching an agreement that prevent the ability for striking, that prevents some of 

the concerns that some of the tribes here have described today. 

The bottom line is in the San Manuel decision, the NLRB noted 

a really big distinction here within that decision, between commercial tribal enterprises, like a casino, like a mine, like a construction 

company, and enterprises that employ a substantial number of 

non-tribal members, and cater to non-Indian clientele versus traditional tribal services or governmental functions. 

Most importantly, the National Labor Relations Board is clear 

that it has no jurisdiction over internal tribal governmental matters, but only over the protection of free speech and the protected, 

concerted activity of employees in commercial tribal enterprises. 

Ms. WILSON of Florida. A witness on the panel testified that the 

application of the National Labor Relations Act would undermine 

federal and tribal policies requiring Indian preference in employment. Do unions have the right to restrict whom employers hire 

under NLRA, or was that outlawed under the Taft-Hartley Act? 

Mr. GRIBBON. It is outlawed. But let me just tell you practically 

speaking, my union, we don’t have an impact on the employer prehiring. We don’t actually have protections for workers for the first 

90 days that they are employed in covered employment under a collective bargaining agreement at a casino. After that 90th day, we 

have the ability to protect and grieve, whatever, should there be a 

reason to do that. 

Having said all that, there are tribes in California, particularly 

Graton Rancheria, where they are absolutely crystal clear that they 

have a Native American preference for hiring, and we salute that, 

we support that. They have been actually very successful at doing 

that. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

48 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize the 

sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Rokita. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chair for holding this hearing. I thank 

the past chair for holding the hearing last Congress. I thank the 

chairman of the full committee for doing this. 

This is a stand-alone bill, it is not supposed to be a controversial 

issue. It got out of the House in a very strong way with bipartisan 

support last Congress, and I expect even more bipartisan support 

this time. 

The fact of the matter remains, Chairman, it is a very busy time. 

We are talking in terms of reconciliation and mega bills, this and 

that, and the other thing, a tax reform, health care. 

This bill is none of that. This bill is simple on its face, and while 

the word talked about most here is ‘‘sovereignty,’’ and I think that 

is a very important concept, I think an even more important word 

that came up in this hearing is ‘‘parity.’’ 

Mr. Norcross asked the question of several of the witnesses, well, 

why is this different than any other. Well, it is different because 

under the NLRA, the National Labor Relations Act, state and local 

governments are not covered, nor, Mr. Gribbon, are there commercial enterprises covered. 

So, this foundation that Mr. Gribbon speaks of that is so badly 

needed for our Native American leaders is not found for our leaders 

and our governments at the State and local levels. That is the parity we are talking about. 

Mr. GRIBBON. Can I speak? 

Mr. ROKITA. No. OSHA does speak to state and local governments, OSHA does cover that, and that is another difference here. 

That is simply what we are talking about, do we believe that our 

Native American leaders are any less legitimate to operate their 

governments or in a less way than our state and local leaders do? 

What is it about Native American leaders that the Obama Administration and NLRB does not trust? 

Are these leaders sitting before us today, ladies and gentlemen 

of this committee, less legitimate than any other mayor, like Phil 

Roe was, or any other elected leader, and by extension, why are 

Native American voters who elected these leaders not trusted in 

parity as leaders of State and local governments were elected? 

I do not know, but that is what it boils down to. We need this 

foundation, Mr. Gribbon describes, because these leaders apparently, and their governments, cannot handle it, in that mindset. 

That is wrong. That idea itself is the idea that is illegitimate. 

That is what this bill intends to correct. I think we are going to 

get there, Mr. Chairman, this time. We had 24 Democrats vote for 

it off the House floor last Congress. I do not know why all of them 

did not. 

Our Native American partners, our brothers and sisters, are either sovereign or they are not, and where do we stand? Fair is fair 

and right is right. 

Chairman Cladoosby, in your written testimony, you state that 

you ‘‘Are not aware of any tribe that does not have an extensive 

process for employees to make complaints and to appeal adverse 

employment decisions.’’ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

49 

What are some examples of how tribes are protecting their employees? Is there anything that we in the Federal Government can 

learn from the Tribes on this topic? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Thank you, Mr. Rokita. Yes, definitely, and once 

again, when I was growing up, Swinomish had five employees in 

the late 1960s/early 1970s, five employees. Now, we have over 900 

employees that are paid very good wages, that have great benefits. 

Some of my employees have been with us 30 plus years because 

they love working for Indian tribes. 

We have definitely set up internally from a tribal governance 

perspective rules that govern our employees, and we have a process 

set up where we have a full H.R. Department, we have an attorney 

that is well versed in labor laws that came to us. 

We are in a position now where we have the infrastructure that 

we’ve never had before, and we do take care of our employees and 

make sure that their concerns are taken care of. 

Just one other point on the NLRB, it has ruled that tribal preference is unlawful in a case involving Chickasaw and Choctaw. 

That is a concern that tribes have across the Nation of allowing a 

third party coming in to our homelands. Thank you. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my time has 

expired. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize my 

friend from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the 

witnesses for being here. I have a little less gloomy perspective 

than my friend, the sponsor of this bill, in terms of the choice that 

we have before us. 

As some of you know on the panel, I am proud to represent Eastern Connecticut, which is home to two of the largest Native American casinos, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Casino, which is 

Mashantucket Pequot Nation. 

Ten years ago, roughly, almost 10 years ago, the UAW and the 

Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation entered into an agreement regarding a labor organizing drive, which again started with the 

NLRB, but ended up with the legal framework of the 

Mashantucket Pequot Nation. For again almost 10 years, they have 

had a very harmonious relationship for the bartenders and the 

dealers that the UAW represents, again, within the framework of 

tribal law. 

Again, I do not want to misrepresent anything. I know the 

Mashantucket’s support this legislation, and I want to make that 

clear on the record, but what I would just say is the notion that 

this is a totally insolvable problem for the two sides to work out, 

recognizing an overall right to collective bargaining, which has 

been guaranteed since the 1930s and recognized by the United Nations, and in the 1800s, Pope Leo recognized collective bargaining 

as an essential element of human dignity. 

Again, we can find a way to make this work. As I said, that in 

fact has been the case. Right now, the UAW and the Mashantucket 

Pequot’s are hard at work at the Connecticut State legislature sort 

of trying to fend off a threat up in Massachusetts in terms of a casino operation opening up there. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

Actually, that collective bargaining relationship, I think, has actually helped them in terms of having sort of more political muscle 

in terms of dealing with that challenge to the casino’s future. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. Again, sovereignty issues are in the fabric of our Nation’s history, and we 

have to be really careful and mindful of it. 

Whether it is a police jurisdiction on casinos or OSHA jurisdiction, these are issues that I think have to be dealt with a scalpel 

and not a sledge hammer. 

As I said, I am an optimist in terms of the fact that reasonable 

people can come to an agreement, recognizing again sovereignty 

and sovereign control. 

So, I really do not have a question. I would like, however, Mr. 

Chairman, to enter into the record a letter from the folks, the 

workforce, at Foxwoods, in terms of again just confirming the fact 

this has worked out, that this issue has been worked out in a harmonious fashion, recognizing the rights of both sides. 

Again, with that, I would yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. Hearing no objection, it will be entered. 

I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 1935, the National 

Labor Relations Act was enacted to ensure fair labor practices, and 

the Board, of course, associated with it. It excluded deliberately 

federal, state, and local governments from its reach. For 70 years, 

that had been the legal precedent, and it applied to Tribal governments as well, until the San Manuel decision in 2004. So, we are 

going on new legal ground here in a very dramatic way. 

Now, as a representative from the great state of Minnesota, in 

my district, I am proud to have two striving tribes, and doing very 

well, so I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation with Representative Rokita and applaud his hard work. 

The problem here is the NLRA is applied to the tribes as a covered entity. This would just be the camel’s nose. What other government rules from the federal government that are currently excluded from local governments, state governments, and commercial 

activities, will now be applied to the tribes as well? 

I have to say I fear when that happens that many of the rules 

in non-tribal enterprises that are hamstringing those will hamstring the tribes as well. These are great enterprise zones, an example of great prosperity for a number of people. 

If we start applying these rules, especially since the tribal governments do not get sales, income, or property tax credits, they rely 

on their commercial activities at this point, and I fear that it will 

do them great damage if we start letting a very capricious NLRB 

start to regulate them. 

In fact, in the San Manuel case, the decision was decided or applied on a case by case basis. So, we have a situation now where 

the Board could act and apply rules in a very, very capricious way, 

and some might even say a political way, which would add more 

uncertainty to tribal governments. 

It has been noted by some of the witnesses or one of the witnesses that workers at casinos—many workers at casinos are not 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

51 

tribal. So, therefore, it is a commercial activity, and the NLRB 

ought to be have jurisdiction there. 

One of the reasons that so many workers, at least in my district, 

at our very successful tribes, are not all from the tribes itself is because these are good jobs. So, non-tribal folks in the Second District want to work there. 

That, I think, is a testament as to why Representative Rokita’s 

bill needs to be passed, to make certain they can continue to strive 

and to continue to offer good jobs to tribal members and non-tribal 

members alike. 

So, I really have no questions for the witnesses other than to say 

in the interest of legal precedent, as well as the concept of 

subsidiarity and local government, these enterprise zones ought to 

be allowed to flourish, and I would add the free speech of tribal 

governments ought to be allowed to flourish as well. 

So, I am proud to support the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 

2017, and urge the committee— 

Mr. ROKITA. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LEWIS. I do. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Will the gentleman consider entering into the record this letter from the United 

States Chamber of Commerce, which asks that this bill be favorably reported not only out of the full committee but out of the 

House of Representatives and out of the Senate? 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I would request this letter from the 

United States Chamber of Commerce be entered in the record that 

advocates the markup of the bill. 

Chairman WALBERG. Hearing no objection, it will be entered. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. Now, I have the 

privilege to recognize the ranking member of the full Education 

and the Workforce Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to you and 

the ranking member for holding the hearing. I am not sure which 

representative will want to answer this, but it is my understanding 

that currently and under the bill, government operations are not 

covered by the NLRB. Is that true? 

Mr. GRIBBON. What I can say to you is the NLRB has said that 

under the San Manuel decision, it provides that the NLRA applies 

only wherein its application would not interfere with tribal rights 

of self-government in purely intramural matters, abrogate rights 

guaranteed by treaty, or be contrary to congressional intent. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me ask some of the other witnesses. Does anybody doubt government operations, city councils, government employees, would not be covered by the NLRB, both under the bill and 

under present law? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. I guess you would need to look at the definition 

of ‘‘government operations.’’ 

Mr. SCOTT. Tribal employees employed by the tribal organization 

doing governmental functions, road building—employees of the 

tribal government doing governmental functions would not be covered by the NLRB either under present law or under the bill? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Just like federal, state, and local government 

employees? 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. That are not covered under the NLRB, we want 

to be treated the same as those federal, those state, and those local 

governments— 

Mr. SCOTT. I am just trying to determine and focus on what the 

impact of the bill would be. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. I think the impact of the bill would look at tribal sovereigns like they did for 70 years under the NLRB, and treat 

us like federal, state, and local governments. That is all we are 

asking today. 

Mr. SCOTT. Under current law and under the bill, you are not 

covered right now for governmental functions? Is that right? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Right now, the NLRB has— 

Mr. SCOTT. Does not apply to government operations? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Once again, your definition of ‘‘government operations’’ might be different than my definition of ‘‘government operations.’’ 

Mr. SCOTT. We have not gotten to that. On the government operations, you are not covered. The bill would extend that exemption 

to Indian owned and operated enterprises. Is that right? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Just like we have mega lotteries run by states 

across the nation. We’re not the only government that runs gaming. 

Mr. SCOTT. I am just trying to understand the bill. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. So, I would hope that you would look at our government operations the same way you would look at a state. 

Mr. SCOTT. I am just trying to understand what the bill does. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Right. 

Mr. SCOTT. The bill extends the exemption to Indian owned and 

operated enterprises. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. The same way it does for state owned and operated enterprises. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Does the bill extend to privately owned enterprises? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. No. So, once again, we are not creating union 

free zones in Indian Country under this bill. We need to make that 

very clear. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would a tribal organization be able to prohibit unions 

from a reservation? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Once again, a sovereign should be allowed to 

govern the way it wants to, no other outside— 

Mr. SCOTT. I am talking about for a private enterprise. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. If a tribe wants to unionize, that is up to the 

Tribe. 

Mr. SCOTT. I am not talking about the tribe. I am talking about 

a private non-Indian owned, non-government owned enterprise, a 

privately owned enterprise, should they be able to prohibit on the 

reservation unions— 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. You mean like a proprietary business operating 

on a reservation? 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. I would hope that this private business operating on a reservation would work with the sovereigns. I think they 

would want to— 

Mr. SCOTT. This bill does not do that, this bill just affects Indian 

owned and operated enterprises. My question was whether or not 

under your standard, the tribe could prohibit unions from operating 

in a privately owned enterprise. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. That’s a good question. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does federal criminal law apply to Indian reservations? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Once again, I hope I’m answering your question 

right, I just want to make it very clear that it does not create union 

free zones in Indian Country. I don’t know if that’s what you’re 

looking for. 

Mr. SCOTT. Right, that was the question. Does federal criminal 

law apply on reservations? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Excuse me? 

Mr. SCOTT. Federal criminal law. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Of course, it does. 

Mr. SCOTT. OSHA? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Of course, it does. 

Mr. SCOTT. Minimum wage? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Of course, it does, just like federal law applies 

to other governments also, I believe. Whether it is a state or local 

or county government, they, too, have federal laws that they have 

to abide by. 

Mr. SCOTT. I am just asking what applies and what does not. I 

am not trying to argue the point. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. I hope that answers the question, all governments have federal laws they have to abide by. 

Mr. SCOTT. Title VII, should that apply to everybody? It applies 

to state and local governments. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Yes 

Chairman WALBERG. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Thank you very much. Those are really, really 

good questions, Mr. Scott. If you need follow up, we’re more than 

happy to give follow up on those questions, but they were really 

great questions. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. I now turn to the 

gentleman from Michigan, my good friend, Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cladoosby, 

can you share with me, under the San Manuel decision, the Board 

indicated it would not assert jurisdiction if the application of law 

would abrogate treaty rights, does the NLRB have any special 

knowledge of Indian treaties, and where does it gather this knowledge from? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Well, unfortunately, treaties with Indian tribes 

in the United States are not truly understood by the majority of 

the citizens. I would hope that any one of our trustees working in 

the Federal Government would want to get educated on the understanding of treaties and treaty rights. I think that should be definitely a 101 for all employees. 

You know, I cannot speak for the NLRB on what their— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

Mr. MITCHELL. Does that decision not create two separate classes, tribes with treaties, tribes without? They are still sovereign nations. Does it not in some manner subdivide them? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Yes, we feel that way. 

Mr. MITCHELL. What is the impact on your tribes? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Once again, it boils down to us having the ability to govern ourselves as sovereigns. We would just want to be 

treated like all the other governments in the U.S. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Gribbon, maybe you could help me understand how it is that the NLRB will magically develop expertise in 

terms of the treaty rights and treaty law, since it has not been 

their primary expertise? 

Mr. GRIBBON. Well, thank you very much for the question. In 

fact, they already have been doing that. The NLRB also adopted a 

criteria where it considers whether there are policy reasons to not 

assert jurisdiction. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Let me stop you— 

Mr. GRIBBON. The— 

Mr. MITCHELL. Excuse me, sir. I get to ask the questions, you get 

to answer them. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRIBBON. Okay, but this— 

Mr. MITCHELL. Excuse me, sir. I am going to ask the question, 

you are going to answer the question. You are not going to answer 

what you want. I said how is it that the NLRB has developed the 

expertise internally, not what policies they developed, I want to 

know where their expertise comes from, their experience, what 

qualified people they have on that. That is my question, sir, not 

what policy they may develop. Please answer the question. 

Mr. GRIBBON. Well, what I can tell you is that consistent with 

the three prong test under San Manuel, the Board declined jurisdiction over an Oklahoma casino run by the Chickasaw Tribe that 

was party to an 1830 treaty, which exempts the tribe from nearly 

all Federal laws, and that proves that they’re doing their job. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That simply indicates at this point in time they 

have chosen not to do so, not that they had the expertise internally, which was the question, sir. 

Let me try another one here. Did the NLRB engage with the 

public prior to deciding the San Manuel decision? Did they request 

briefs from tribes? What expertise did they gather to make the decision that it could make that distinction? 

Mr. GRIBBON. I don’t work for the NLRB, so I don’t know what 

kind of input they got. I can imagine that it was substantial and 

huge, from every direction, since that’s how they work. That’s why 

it takes them usually so long to make a decision. They take information from all interested parties. 

Mr. MITCHELL. So, your opposition to this bill is solely based on 

your assessment that they have done a great job so far and not any 

argument they have expertise to make this determination? 

Mr. GRIBBON. Absolutely not. That is not my argument. My argument is and my argument would be that workers deserve better 

rights than they receive in this country, whether they be on Indian 

lands or not. That workers have been harassed and abused, especially by your party, really badly, over a whole number of years, 

and there could be very, very good improvements made if we were 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

really worried about raising wages and personal income and respect and dignity in this country. 

I believe we could do much better. I’m saying the NLRA is an 

absolute bare minimum— 

Mr. MITCHELL. You did not answer my question. 

Mr. GRIBBON. Bare minimum. I’m not happy with it, it’s a bare 

minimum. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I am happy for you, but I get to ask the questions. You get to testify, I get to ask the questions. If you want to 

stop by my office later, I am happy to have a debate with you. 

Mr. GRIBBON. Okay. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That would be great. First, I grew up in a union 

household. Like my friend from Minnesota, we have a lot of employees, and people go to work in the casinos that in fact have options to go to jobs that are represented, and they choose to go there 

because they are good jobs, and they are better jobs than union 

represented jobs in many places. 

What you see as the panacea, protection, it does not offer much, 

and does in my opinion violate the sovereignty of the tribal nations. 

I am asking Mr. Rokita to please add me as a co-sponsor of the 

bill, and if you want to continue the debate, please stop by my office and we can talk about labor relations. 

Mr. GRIBBON. All right. I think— 

Mr. MITCHELL. My time has expired. I yield back, sir. 

Mr. GRIBBON. Totally missed the point. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Smucker. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cladoosby, 

is it not true that many tribes have enacted their own laws or ordinances that govern labor relations at tribal commercial enterprises? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Could you please expand a little on what they are? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Sure. Once again, tribes have never had the opportunity to have a Marshall Plan. Do I wish it was some other 

form of operations that enabled us to create this great infrastructure? Yes. It is what it is. 

So, right now, tribes around the nation have shown that they 

have the ability to be the largest employers in their areas, and they 

take care of their employees very well. Many of them have implemented employer rights ordinances to make sure that their employees are taken care of satisfactorily. 

Like the gentleman said, you know, we do pay pretty fair wages 

in some of our operations and full benefits. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Do you have concerns if the NLRB determines it 

has jurisdiction what will become of those tribal labor laws? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Once again, I would hope that the NLRB would 

see this as an intrusion into a sovereign, and that they would recognize that we have the ability internally to take care of our own, 

just like any other government, whether it be state, county, or 

local. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Chairman Welch, I will ask you to sort of address 

the same question. You spoke about the Viejas Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance that has worked well over the years. Why do you 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

think that TLROs are more important for a sovereign entry than 

the NLRA? 

Mr. WELSH. Our TLRO was brought forward to us with working 

hand in hand with the California state, the government. The governor at that time asked that we put one together to enter into for 

compact negotiations. 

I think the governor at that time did not believe the NLRA or 

NLRB had jurisdiction over the reservation, which has been proven, because 1935 to 2004, when Congress enacted the NLRA, they 

never envisioned Tribes being successful as they are, so they were 

never put into it. 

So, how can NLRB finish the process of what Congress had instituted when Congress hadn’t finished it? That’s one of our big objectives with NLRA and NLRB. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being with us today. Chairman Welch, the NLRB, which was enacted in 1930, was intended to govern private sector labor management relations. Can you explain why the application of the NLRB 

is in conflict with the role of the state, local, and tribal governments? 

Mr. WELSH. Can you repeat that, the last part? 

Mr. ALLEN. Can you explain why the application of the NLRB is 

in conflict with the sovereignty of the tribal governments? 

Mr. WELSH. Because they’re trying to tell us what to do, and we 

have sovereign rights enacted to us by Congress and the Constitution. 

Mr. ALLEN. All right, good. You answered that. 

Mr. Cladoosby, many federal laws specifically exclude Indian 

tribes from the definition of ‘‘employer.’’ Is there any mention of 

‘‘Indian Tribes’’ in the NLRA? If the act is silent, what theory has 

the NLRB applied to exert jurisdiction over Indian tribes? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. That’s a really good question, sir, and their ability to assert jurisdictions over a government is one that we are trying to figure out also. We feel that we protect the rights of our employees very, very well. 

I guess once again, you know, when we look at it from a state, 

local, and county perspective, what right would they have to go into 

those governments like they want to come into ours. 

Mr. ALLEN. Again, the act was enacted in the 1930s, how have 

tribal governments and tribal enterprises changed since then, and 

why does this further support the idea that tribal enterprises on 

tribal lands should not be subject to the NRLA? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. I think you’ve heard about the income. I’m not 

sure if this is about money or about looking out for the best interests of the employees. I know we as tribes have come a long way. 

Like I said earlier, Swinomish only had five employees when I was 

growing up, and to have over 900 now that we take care of very 

well is a great accomplishment. 

Like one gentleman said, they can’t vote, a lot of them, because 

they’re not tribal members, but if you look at Las Vegas and Reno, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

where you have a lot of gaming, a lot of those employees come from 

outside of Las Vegas and Reno, and they can’t vote there either. 

We just want to be treated the same as other governments. 

Mr. ALLEN. It is not that your wages are below what is normally 

paid, or you are taking advantage of members of your tribe in your 

operation here? You just want to do—given the rights you have 

been given, you just want to be able to manage this the way it was 

originally established? 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ALLEN. Exactly. Here we have the government saying that 

we want to intervene. We have that problem in a lot of areas. Of 

course, that is why so many people want to get into this country, 

because of the way we treat our workers with dignity and respect. 

In fact, I had the opportunity to work in the small business 

arena for 35 years, and I was able to—the greatest blessing I had 

received, and I realized this later on in my career, I wish I had realized it earlier, but boy, what a blessing it was, and I am sure you 

are experiencing this, from what I have heard in your testimony, 

is to give people the opportunity to have a good job, to give them 

the dignity and respect they deserve, and to allow them to provide 

for their families, and also provide for their Nation. That is a great 

privilege. 

I thank you for coming out and providing your testimony today. 

I look forward to working with you on this. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Thank you, Mr. Allen. I think at the end of the 

day, any operation, any business, all they want is good employee 

relationships, employees to feel comfortable coming to work, and 

they want their employees to feel like they have the greatest jobs 

in the world. 

Tribes are in a position now to do some things that we’ve never 

ever been able to do, and we’re just very blessed. The Creator has 

blessed us and allowed us to be able to make a lot of families 

happy that otherwise wouldn’t have that opportunity. 

Mr. ALLEN. I am going to do my best to keep the federal government out of your way. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. Now, it is my privilege to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Sablan, for your closing 

remarks. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank all the witnesses today for their testimony. I am not trying 

to stick my nose into your business. 

As I noted at the outset, the San Manuel decision struck a balance between the protection of tribal sovereignty rights and the 

protection of workers’ rights. Although Tribal Labor Relations Ordinances have been adopted by some tribes, these ordinances vary 

greatly in the levels of workforce protection. 

I have Section 3107 of the 2010 Blackfeet Tribal Employment 

Rights Ordinance and Safety Enforcement Act of 2010, which I ask 

to insert in the record. It reads ‘‘Unions are prohibited in the 

Blackfeet Indian reservation.’’ 

So, there are tribes that discourage unions in their organizations. 

Chairman WALBERG. Without objection, it will be entered. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

Mr. SABLAN. There is no uniform standard for tribal ordinances, 

which means there could be 567 different labor standards, depending on the tribe. 

What provides protection is the National Labor Relations Act. However, if H.R. 986 is enacted, workers would lose the protection 

of the federal minimum standard. Similar concerns were raised by 

the International Labor Organization in a letter to Congress regarding the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. ILO wrote in part, in those cases where there are no Tribal 

Labor Relations Ordinances, undue restrictions on collective bargaining, excessive limitation on freedom of association rights, or 

lack of protection from unfair labor practices, workers on tribal territories would be left without any remedy for violation of their fundamental freedom of association rights, short of the Constitution. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent also to include 

this three-page letter from the International Labor Organization in 

the record of this hearing. 

Chairman WALBERG. Without objection, it will be entered. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you, sir. I would also ask for unanimous consent to include the letter in opposition from the AFL–CIO, International Union of Operating Engineers, United Auto Workers, 

Local 2121, and the United Steel Workers, into the record. 

Chairman WALBERG. Without objection, they will be entered. 

Mr. SABLAN. As we have learned today, Indian Tribes are subject 

to a number of federal employment laws, including the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, OSHA, ERISA, the Family and Medical Leave Act, but Mr. Cladoosby, in your response to the Ranking Member’s 

question if Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies to the tribes, 

you answered ‘‘yes’’. The answer is ‘‘no’’. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not apply to Indian tribes, 

but it does to any local government. 

Mr. CLADOOSBY. Thank you for that correction, sir. 

Mr. SABLAN. You are welcome, sir. 

A review of the committee’s activities may help explain the focus 

since the Majority took control in 2011: there have been 26 hearings or markups attacking the National Labor Relations Board’s 

rules on these issues, compared with 17 on-the-job training and 

technical education, 11 on OSHA and mine safety, 15 on pensions 

and retirement issues, and 11 on wages and hour issues. 

What we know is that only 6.4 percent of the private sector 

workforce today is covered by a union agreement. Union agreements have provided many low wage service workers employed in 

tribal casinos or other tribal businesses with improved wages and 

benefits, which has provided them with a foothold to the middle 

class. By negotiating employer provided health care, the cost to 

state and local governments for health care costs has gone down. 

Legislation in this area needs to balance the sovereign rights of 

Native American tribes with the rights of workers to organize and 

bargain collectively. 

Mr. Chairman, we should not be enacting legislation that weakens workers’ ability to bargain for a fair share of the wealth, 

whether it is in a commercial business or a tribal enterprise. 

If I may, one of the main reasons if not the main reason that I 

ran for Congress was to find a way to help improve the education 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

of the poor people that I represent in the Northern Mariana Islands. In the seven years working on that, I am finally happy, with 

the help of Mr. Kline and Mr. Scott, and I think Mr. Rokita was 

also ranking at that time, that we were able to increase the formula for Title I money. 

We had that hearing, and I saw the appalling state of Indian 

schools, so I was able also working with Mr. Kline to increase the 

funding for Bureau of Indian Education. You guys need to speak 

up for your people, their education, and the appalling state of the 

education ran by the Department of Interior is not something that 

I can say I am proud of, to be an American. 

After saying that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman, and thank you especially as you come from a perspective of actually being a tribal 

member, and appreciate your passion and your concern. 

I want to thank Chairman Cladoosby, Delegate Brown, Mr. 

Gribbon, and also Chairman Welch, for taking the time and effort 

to travel, et cetera, to be here. I appreciate that fact. 

I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Rokita, for your diligence in 

bringing this back up. As chairman of the K–12 Subcommittee, this 

fits, as we talk to young people, talk about the wealth of our Nation and our history, that includes also some challenging times as 

we worked out treaties, as we dealt with the Native American population. 

There were some—I guess the weakest words to use would be 

‘‘frustrating times,’’ there were some tragic times as well. Treaties 

have been developed, sovereignty has been affirmed, not simply by 

statement but by law and agreement. 

That term ‘‘sovereignty’’ is extremely important for us to understand. We revel in that here in the United States of America. We 

understand that we are a sovereign nation, and when we recognize 

other nations in the world as being sovereign, including the nations 

we are looking at right here in front of us this morning, that is 

something that we ought to make sure our young people understand, K–12 on up, and it is something more importantly that we 

ought to keep the faith with in our treaties, in our agreements, and 

in our laws. 

That is all this is here today. We are not talking about holding 

back unions and union organization. We are not talking about that. 

I think all of us here would respond that we respect and we want 

to continue the freedom for our workers to organize in unions. Do 

it fairly, on both sides, of course, but that ought to be a right. 

We are talking of a sovereign nation. It is their determination 

that comes first, and we ought to honor that. Today, we are answering a question, can we do it better than the tribes? Maybe, but 

that is not our authority. Maybe not as well. That is your authority. 

I think that is what we are affirming today. Definitely, Mr. 

Chairman, we are affirming parity. We wrestle with that in our 

States, do we not? The Tenth Amendment, liberties, that we say 

all the time are being stepped upon by the Federal Government. 

Today, we are seeing that it is the same type of situation for the 

tribes. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

I appreciate the questions, the testimonies given today, and I appreciate the thought processes to move this forward and to put it 

in front of us, and I think because of that we will also put the point 

in history of reminding ourselves that those treaties, those agreements, have purpose, have strength, have power, and it is about 

time we recognized that, and we push back on entities of our U.S. 

federal government when they are attempting to step over the 

bounds, regardless of what certain courts have said, we identify 

with our responsibility to uphold the Constitution just as much as 

any court. 

Seeing there is no further business before the subcommittee, we 

stand adjourned. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

[Additional submission by Mr. Cladoosby follows:} 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 24757.051

EXECUiiVE COMMITTEE 

PRESIDENT 

BrianC!adoosby 

SwuJOm!ShTnbe 

REGIONAL VICE· 

PRESIDENTS 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN 

Oarrin Old Coyot~ 

CrowNat1on 

SOUTHEAST 

L'llrryTowns~nd 

Lumbee Tnbe 

EXECUTlVE DIRECTOR 

JacquelinePata 

77mgrr 

NCAI HEADQUARTERS 

1516 P Street, N W 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.466.7767 

202.466 7797 fax 

www nca1 org 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

Aprill2, 2017 

The Honorable Tim Walberg, Chairman 

U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions 

2176 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Raoking Member 

U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions 

2176 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Re: Supplemental Statement of the Honorable Brian Cladoosby, President of the 

National Congress of American Indians and Chair of the Swinomish Indian Tribal 

Community, Testimony before the United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor and Pensions Hearing on H.R. 986 The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 

2017. 

(Supplemental Testimony) H.R.986- The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of2017 

Dear Chairman Walberg and Raoking Member Sablan, 

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians, thaok you again for your 

invitation to testify on March 29, 2017 regarding H.R. 986 - The Tribal Labor 

Sovereignty Act of 2017. It was a privilege to present to the Committee on the 

importance of bringing parity to tribal governments by ensuring that tribal 

governments are treated like other govermnents under the National Labor Relations 

Act. This testimony serves to clarify and expand on some of the questions asked 

during the hearing. 

1. Are Tribes subject to Federal Statutes like the American with Disabilities Act 

(ADA), Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA), the Employee 

Retirement lncome Security Act (ERISA) and others? 

lt depends. An enduring principle of federal Indian law recognizes that in order to 

limit tribal sovereignty, Congress must clearly express its intent to do so. This is 

known as the clear statement rule. Under this principle, when a federal statute is 

silent as to its application to Indian tribes, that silence should not be used against 

tribes to limit tribal sovereignty or authorize lawsuits against tribal governments. In 

the U.S. Supreme Court case of Merrion v. Jicari/la Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 

149 (1982), the Court stated that "because the Tribe retains all inherent attributes of 

sovereignty that have not been divested by the Federal Government, the proper 
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 24757.052

inference from silence ... is that the sovereign power ... remains intact." In this context, the 

Supreme Court interprets congressional silence to mean that the authority of tribes to act in certain 

instances or on particular issues remains intact, further recognizing and promoting tribal 

sovereignty and self-determination. In 2014, this enduring principle was affirmed in the Michigan v. 

Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2031-32 (2014) in stating that courts "will not lightly 

assume that Congress in fact intends to undermine Indian self-government." 

The OSHA, ERISA, and other federal statutes considered to be generally applicable to persons, 

property or groups do not mention tribes in either text or through legislative history. Circuit Courts 

have asserted different approaches and reasoning in determining whether these generally applicable 

federal statutes apply to tribally owned operations on tribal lands. For example, both the Tenth and 

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals have applied the clear statement rule requiring specific statutory 

intent or language before applying those statutes to the conduct of tribes. See, e.g., Donovan v. 

Navajo Forest Products Industries, 692 F.2d 709 (lOth Cir. 1982) (regarding the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act); E.E.O.C. v. Fond duLac Heavy Equip. and Constr. Co., 986 F.2d 246 (8th 

Cir. 1993) (regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act). 

The Tenth Circuit decision in NLRB v. Pueblo of San Juan Pueblo, 280 F.3d 1278 (!01

h Circuit 

2000) again applies the clear statement rule to find that the NLRB did not prevent the Pueblo from 

applying its own right-to-work laws on its own tribal lands. The Court explained that when "tribal 

sovereignty is at stake, the Supreme Court has cautioned that 'we tread lightly in the absence of 

clear indications of legislative intent"' to abrogate the sovereignty of tribes. The Cotllt also found 

that the NLRB by its terms is not a statute of general applicability because it does exclude states 

and territories. 

Other Circuit Cotllts including the Ninth, Seventh and Second Circuits assert a different approach 

and have made the presumption that federal statutes of general applicability apply to tribes if the 

statutes do not interfere with a tribe's sovereign authority or those rights that were recognized 

through treaties. The turning point for these Courts seems to rely on whether tribal employers are 

engaged in "governmentarl activity versus "commercial" activity. 

This is particularly problematic for tribal governments who lack an effective tax base and are 

obligated to engage in economic activity to raise revenue to fund programs and services to their 

members and neighbors. Indian lands are held in trust by the U.S. and cannot be subjected to real 

estate taxation, high reservation unemployment makes income taxation unworkable, and restrictive 

Supreme Court rulings have severely limited tribal government sales ta'<es. As a result, for many 

tribal governments-Indian gaming operations, tribal agriculture, energy and timber operations, and 

other tribal government enterprises constitute the sole source of governmental revenue that is used 

to fund daily tribal services including, public safety, education, health, housing, social services and 

other essential services to residents of Indian Country. 

Furthermore, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA") expressly states its purpose "to provide 

a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal 

economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments." 25 U.S.C. Section 2702(1) 

(Declaration of Policy). In addition, IGRA mandates that tribal governments use net revenues from 

Indian gaming solely for government purposes: to fund tribal government operations or programs; 

to provide for the general welfare of the tribal community; to promote tribal economic 

2 
63 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 24757.053

development; to donate to charitable organizations; or to help fund operations of local government 

agencies. 25 U.S.C. Section 2710(b)(2)(B). 

We note that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 contains a clear statement and 

specifically exempts Indian tribal governments from the definition of "employer." Even with this, 

Indian tribes have worked diligently to create accessible workplaces using their own sovereign 

authority to do so. The ADA provides an excellent example of how tribal governments whose 

sovereignty is respected will advance worker protection as a matter of tribal self-determination. 

Favoring the Supreme Court's clear statement principle not only promotes tribal sovereignty but 

reaffirms the established precedent that absent express intent by Congress, federal statutes that 

serve to restrict or limit a sovereign governments ability to regulate on its own tribal lands should 

not apply to tribes. Furthermore, the NLRB has not been commissioned to effectuate the policies of 

the NLRA so single mindedly that it may wholly ignore other and equally important Congressional 

objectives. 

2. Are tribes asking to be exempt from every federal statute? 

Absolutely Not. I want to emphasize that tribal governments are not seeking to avoid federal 

statutes that protect the safety of workers or promote healthy working conditions like OSHA or the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Let me be clear that as tribal governments, we all strive to 

provide the best working conditions and the best incentives for workers who choose to be employed 

in our tribal operations. Many of those workers who do choose to work for tribes do so because of 

the many beneficial and favorable working conditions that currently exist. Indian tribes, like other 

governmental employers, have a huge interest in ensuring that their employees are satisfied and 

productive in serving community needs. In fact, tribal government employers regularly are hailed as 

the best employers in their regions. 

However, when the authority of tribal governments to govern and regulate their own workforce on 

tribal lands is directly restricted or limited, inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court law and without a 

specific act of Congress, then tribes must take an aggressive position against these restrictions. As I 

mentioned in my previous testimony, The NLRB's decision not to exempt tribes as governmental 

entities, in effect, gives outside third-party unions the power and control to call a strike of a tribal 

government's workforce and face possible shut downs of revenue generating operations needed and 

relied upon by tribal communities on a daily basis. 

Those public services include public safety, law enforcement, schools, health care centers, housing, 

social services programs and other essential services to residents of local Indian communities. This 

is not just a problem for tribes, it is a problem that all governments would face is they were subject 

to the NLRA. There is a reason why 90,000 other governmental entities are exempt in this country 

and tribes should be included in this exemption. Giving unions all the power under the NLRA is 

simply not the answer and putting private interests ahead of governmental interests is inconsistent 

with the federal governments trust responsibilities to tribes. 

Federal employees and most state employees generally do not have the right to strike. Where 

government employees do have the right to strike, the government itself has alone made its own 

sovereign decision to expose itself as an employer to a strike. It is the antithesis of sovereignty for 
64 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 24757.054

one government to make that decision for another government Yet, this is the current condition 

facing tribal governments. This must be fixed. 

3. If Tribes are exempt from the National Labor Regulation Act, would this create union free 

zones on tribal lands? 

No. As I mentioned in my previous testimony, some have suggested the legislation before this 

subcommittee is nothing more than a "Trojan Horse" that, if enacted, will inevitably lead to other 

bills frustrating the application of other federal workforce laws to activities on Indian lands. This is 

simply untrue. The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act will not affect the implementation of any other 

federal law regulating the workplace. 

Tribes should possess the authority to hire employees under their own labor laws, including the 

authority to hire based on Indian preference and regulate the worker-employer relationship 

occurring on their own tribal lands. Many tribes have already enacted labor laws/ordinances for 

their own communities to provide mechanisms for labor unions to negotiate collective bargaining 

agreements. As part of their gaming compacts with the State of California, many California tribes 

are doing so as part of compact negotiations and agreements. Still other tribes across this country 

have enacted labor ordinances that are tailored to meet the demands of a growing workforce as well 

as those governmental obligations tribes have in serving their greater communities. 

Conclusion: 

In conclusion, once again, thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee on H.R. 986, 

the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017- a very critical and important piece of legislation that 

tribal governments across the United States strongly support. NCAI views the enactment of the 

Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act as a crucial step for Congress to take to ensure that the United States 

consistently respects the sovereignty of tribal governments, and does so by explicitly adding 

"tribes" to the definition of governmental entities exempt from the National Labor Relations Act of 

1935. 

Sincerely, 

Brian Cladoosby 

President 

4 
65 

[Additional submission by Mr. Courtney follows:} 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 24757.025

• 

UAW Local2121 

2 Chapman Lane 

Suite lA Unit 3 

Gales Ferry, CT 06335 

Chairwoman Virginia Foxx 

Ranking Member Bobby Scott 

www.uawatfoxwoods.org 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2176 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: 

(860) 381-5467 

UAW local 2121 and UAW International Union are writing in opposition to H.R. 986, the Tribal 

Labor Sovereignty Act. This bill would deny protection under the National Labor Relations Act 

(NlRA) to hundreds of thousands of workers, including more than two hundred thousand 

workers employed by tribal casinos. UAW Region 9A represents fifteen hundred dealers at 

Foxwoods Resort and Casino, an enterprise of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation in 

Connecticut. 

In 2007, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in San Manuel vs. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) 

that commercial enterprises owned by tribes are subject to U.S. labor law if the employees and 

patrons are predominately not tribal members. An estimated 43% of all U.S. gaming is tribally 

owned, creating approximately 628,000 jobs nationwide. Of those jobs, approximately 75% are 

held by non-tribal employees, which is certainly the case at Foxwoods. 

The UAW won an NLRB election at Foxwoods in November, 2007 to represent all dealers and 

assistant floor supervisors. MPTN lost its jurisdictional challenge before the NlRB and 

subsequently violated federal law by refusing to bargain with the Union. 

On October 10, 2008, while the NlRB pursued enforcement of an order to bargain in the courts, 

the UAW and MPTN entered into a "Framework Agreement" pursuant to which the union 

agreed to bargain under MPTN tribal law, if the MPTN made agreed upon amendments to its 

Labor Relations and Right to Work laws and certified the UAW as the exclusive bargaining 

representative for the unit that had previously been certified by the NLRB. The MPTN certified 

that these conditions were met on October 28, 2008. 

This agreement and underlying tribal labor law only works because there is an expressed 

written reservation of rights that allow the union to revert to the jurisdiction of the NLRA if the 

Tribal government makes fundamental changes to its labor law or refuses to abide by arbitral 

decisions. 

The right to return to the protections of NLRA can be invoked by the UAW at any time upon 

thirty days' notice to the Mashantucket Tribal Gaming Enterprise if the UAW determines that 
66 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 24757.026

tribal institutions and procedures have not provided due process and a fair determination of 

employee rights. Without this mechanism that guarantees fair labor laws, the current contract 

and the right to collectively bargain would be meaningless. 

We again sincerely urge you to not pass this bill. 

Sincerely, 

Andrea Goodrich, President 

UAW Local 2121 Foxwoods Resort and Casino 
67 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 24757.027

We are writing in opposition to HR 986 the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. This bill would deny 

protection under the National Labor Relations Act to more than two hundred thousand workers 

employed by tribal casinos. UAW Region 9A represents more than 40,000 active and retired 

members in the New England states, New York City and Puerto Rico including fifteen hundred 

dealers at Foxwoods Resort and Casino, an enterprise of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal 

Nation in Connecticut. 

In 2007, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in San Manuel vs NLRB that commercial enterprises owned 

by Tribes are subject to U.S. labor law if the employees and patrons are, predominately, not 

tribal members. An estimated 43% of all U.S. gaming is tribally owned creating about 628,000 

jobs nationwide. Of those jobs, approximately 75% are held by non-tribal employees, which is 

certainly· the case at Foxwoods. 

The UAW won an NLRB election at Foxwoods in November, 2007 to represent all dealers and 

assistant floor supervisors. MPTN lost its jurisdictional challenge before the NLRB and 

subsequently violated federal law by refusing to bargain with the Union. 

On October 10, 2008, while the NLRB pursued enforcement of an order to bargain in the courts, 

the UAW and MPTN entered into a "Framework Agreement" pursuant to which the Union 

agreed to bargain under MPTN tribal law, if the MPTN made agreed upon amendments to its 

Labor Relations and Right to Work laws and certified the UAW as the exclusive bargaining 

representative for the unit that had previously been certified by the NLRB. The MPTN certified 

that these conditions were met on October 28, 2008. 

This agreement and underlying tribal labor law only works because there is an expressed 

written reservation of rights that allow the union to revert to the jurisdiction of the NLRA if the 

Tribal government makes fundamental changes to its labor law or refuses to abide by arbitral 

decisions. 

The right to return to the protections of NLRA can be invoked by the UAW at any time upon 

thirty days' notice to the Mashantucket Tribal Gaming Enterprise if the UAW determines that 

tribal institutions and procedures have not provided due process and a fair determination of 

employee rights. Without this mechanism that guarantees fair labor laws, the current contract 

and the right to collectively bargain would be meaningless. 

We again sincerely urge you to not pass this bill. 

Sincerely, 

Andrea Goodrich, President 

UAW Local 2121 Foxwoods Resort and Casino 
68 

[Additional submission by Mr. Lewis follows:} 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 24757.028

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

OF THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NEIL L. BRADLEY 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & 

CHIEF POLICY OFFICER 

GOVERN MBNT AFFAIRS 

1615 H STREET, NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20062 

(202) 463·5310 

March·29, 2017 

The Honorable Tim Walberg 

Chainnan 

Subco!ll.tilittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor, and Pensions 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

U.S. Hot~se ·of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Gregorio Sablan 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor, and Pensions · 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

US. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Walberg and Ranking Member Sablan: 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports H.R. 986, the "Tribal Labor 

Sovereignty Act of 2.0 17': (TLSA), :which is being heard by your subcommittee today. 

H.R. 986 would respect and promote tribal sovereignty by affirming the rights of tribal 

governmental employers to determine their own labor practices on their own lands. Sponsored 

by Rep. Todd Rokita, TLSA enjoys bipartisan support. During the I 14th Congress this bill 

passed the House with that strong support. 

In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was enacted to ensure fair labor 

practices, but excluded federal, state, and local governmental employers from its reach. Though 

the NLRA did not expressly mention Indian tribes let alone treat Indian tribes as governmental· 

employers, the NLRB respected the sovereign status of tribal governmental employers for close 

to seventy years before abruptly abandoning its own precedent and reversing course with the San 

Manuel Indian Bingo case in 2004.1 · · 

Since that decision, the NLRB has been aggressively asserting jurisdiction over tribal 

labor practices when the Board determines tribal government employers are acfuig in a 

"commercial" rather than a "governmental" capacity -an analysis it does not apply to fcderai, 

state, or local government employers. 

TLSA would build upon a demonstrably successful principle: where tribal sove,reignty is 

vigorously exercised, economic success follows. H.R. 986 would prevent an unnecessary and · 

unwarranted overreach by the NLRB into the sovereign jurisdiction of tribal governments. By 

amending the NLRA to specifically exempt tribal governments, H.R. 986 would provide 

1 SanManuellndianBingo and Casino, 341 N.L.R.B.1055 (2004). 
69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 24757.029

certainty and clarity to ensure that tribRI govemmental statutes conceming labor relations would 

remain intact. The Chamber believes that this approach would best meet the needs of the tribes 

and the American business community more generally. -~..-----~~~~--"-·-~-..... ~:::: ·::::....,..,,, ..... :-\ ··"" • - . • .•. , •.. ,.,., •• -·~-···-·"..,.. •' •• , h • . ' " ., ..... .,. •• ~ ...... ··~- • ~~"~ ........... . 

/._.--- The ChiJlRber,sti'Ongly supports H.R. 986 and requests that the full Conunittee"ttltim~tely 

( favora,~Iyrepoit the bill so the House can take it up for consideration expeditiously. ""-,..._"'-

• .... , ...... "--··-·---·- ;tGig· -~---·-··) 

NeilL. Bradley 

cc: Members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
70 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Sablan follow:} 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 24757.030

UNITED STEELWORKERS 

VIA FAX 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

March 27, 2017 

Leo W. Gerard 

International President 

RE: United Steelworkers oppose anti-worker H.R.986, Tribal Labor 

Sovereignty Act of 2017 

Dear Representative: 

On behalf of the 850,000 members of the United Steelworkers (USW), we 

strongly urge you to reject the anti-worker and undemocratic Tribal Labor 

Sovereignty Act of 2017 (H.R.986). If H.R.986 were to become law it would 

exempt all employees of federally recognized Native American-owned 

commercial enterprises operated on Indian lands from the protections of the 

National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). 

To be absolutely clear this legislation strips workers, both Native American 

and non-Native American of their NLRA protections. While some organizations 

have falsely attempted to paint tribal governments as similar entities to states 

(which are exempt from the NLRA), tribal governments are substantially different 

than states in one key democratic principal. State governments allow workers an 

ability to vote for their legislators no matter their ancestry, while most tribal 

governments require blood quantum or lineal descent to determine who is eligible 

for membership or citizenship. 

Simply put, U.S. citizens working in the United States for tribal commercial 

enterprises would not be able to vote for the elected representatives who will set 

their labor laws. These workers will lose the ability to petition the government that 

oversees their working conditions if this bill becomes law. 

In the gaming industry which is an employer for approximately 246 of the 

567 federally recognized American Indian tribes: the industry has over 600,000 

casino workers on tribal lands, the overwhelming majority of whom are not Native 

Americans. In 2011 before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, the National 

Indian Gaming Commission testified that the vast majority of employees (up to 75 

percent) were non-tribal members. 

United Steel. Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing. Energy, Allied lndustriol and Service WorkoN International Union 

Five Goleway Center, Pitt~burgh, PA 15222 • 412·562-2400 • www.usw.org 
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 24757.031

2 

USW understands the importance of the principle of tribal sovereignty; 

however the fundamental human rights of employees are not the exclusive 

concern of tribal enterprises or tribal governments. As the International Labor 

Organization highlighted in a letter on a previous version of this bill, "it is critical 

that the State (the national authority) takes ultimate responsibility for ensuring 

respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining rights throughout its 

territory" 1

. That is why USW believes the current test set by the NLRB is the best 

course of action until labor laws are strengthened in the United States. 

In 2004, the Bush Administration NLRB ruled for the first time that Tribal 

casino workers should have the benefit of NLRA protections, San Manuel, 341 NLRB 

No. 138 (2204). Yet, since the San Manuel ruling, the NLRB has stepped very 

carefully, asserting jurisdiction on a case-by-case. In 2015, the NLRB declined 

jurisdiction citing the 1830 Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek and 1866 Treaty of 

Washington stating: 

"We have no doubt that asserting jurisdiction over the Casino and the 

Nation would effectuate the policies of the Act. However, because we 

find that asserting jurisdiction would abrogate treaty rights specific to 

the Nation." Chickasaw Nation Windstar World Casino, 362 NLRB 109 

92015). 

Similarly the NLRB declined jurisdiction: 

" .. when an Indian tribe is fulfilling a traditionally tribal or governmental 

function that is unique to its status, fulfilling just such a unique 

governmental function [providing free health care services solely to 

tribal members]," Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation, 341 NLRB 139 

(2004). 

The NLRB has developed a reasonable and responsible test to determine 

jurisdiction. H.R.986 is unnecessary and creates significant confusion and 

jurisdictional issues over labor law enforcement. Our union asks you to oppose 

H.R.986 and ask you to instead work to expand worker's rights not restrict them 

further. 

LWG/cdk 

Sincerely, 

£..ow. n~ 

Leo W. Gerard 

International President 

1 http://www.usw.org/get-involved/legislative/ILO-opinion-on-Tribai-Labor-Sovereignty-Act.pdf 
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 24757.032

International Labour Office 

Bureau international du Travail 

Ofictna lnternacional del TrabaJO 

Route des Morillons 4 

CH-1211Geneve22 

TeL d~rect: 

Fax direct: 

E-mail: 

Ref., AFL-CIO Votre re1.: 

Dear Mr. Trumka, 

Mr R. L. Trumka 

President 

AFL-CIO 

International Labour Offtce 

Bureau international du Travail 

Oftctna International del Traba1o 

815 Sixteenth Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

United States of America 

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 22 October 2015 requesting an informal 

opinion and guidance from the International Labour Organization in respect of a Bill being 

considered by the United States Congress. 

In particular, you have raised concerns about the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act (H.R. 

511) which you state would deny protection under the National Labor Relations Act 

(NLRA) of a large number of workers employed by tribal-owned and tribal-operated 

enterprises located on tribal territory and ask for the informal opinion of the Office as to 

whether such an exclusion of workers employed on tribal lands would be in conformity with 

the principles of freedom of Association which are at the core of the ILO Constitution and 

the ILO's Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. 

In conformity with the regular procedure concerning requests for an informal opinion 

from the International Labour Office in respect of draft legislation and its possible impact 

on international labour standards and principles, the views set out below should in no way 

be considered as prejudging any comments or observations that might be made by the 

ILO supervisory bodies within the framework of their examination of the application of 

ratified international labour standards or principles on freedom of association. 

Your links to committee reports of the congressional majority and minority and other 

background information have enabled the Office to consider the views of the parties both 

for and against the proposed amendment and they all appear to confirm recognition of the 

United States' obligation to uphold freedom of association and collective bargaining. While 

the proponents of the Bill assert that this can be achieved through the 

labour relations' regimes autonomously determined by the tribal nations, the opponentsand you yourself in your request - maintain that excluding tribal lands from the NLRA will in 

effect result in a loss (or at the very least inadequate protection) of their trade 

union rights. Not only do you refer to tribal labour relations ordinances which in your view 

provide inadequate protections in this regard, but you also refer to instances where there 

are no tribal labour relations ordinances at all. 

.. .! .... 

E·ma:l: tlo@i!o.org Site tnternet. W\."-i"/IJ.IIo org 
73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 24757.033

-2-

While elements of indigenous peoples' sovereignty have been invoked by the 

proponents of this Bill, the central question revolves around the manner in which the 

United States Government can best assure throughout its territory the full application 

of the fundamental principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining. From an 

ILO perspective, while the variety of mechanisms for ensuring freedom of association and 

collective bargaining rights may differ depending on distinct sectoral considerations or 

devolution of labour competence, it is critical that the State (the national authority) takes 

ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for freedom of association and collective 

bargaining rights throughout its territory. 1 

As you have indicated, the 2004 San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino decision 

assures possible recourse to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an overarching 

mechanism aimed at ensuring the protection of freedom of association, while also 

maintaining deference to the sovereign interests of the tribal nations so as to avoid 

touching on exclusive rights of self-governance. 

Full abdication of review via an exclusion from the scope of the NLRA for all 

workers employed on tribal lands as described might make it very difficult for the United 

States Government to assure the fundamental trade union rights of workers. In cases like 

those mentioned where there are no tribal labour relations ordinances, undue restrictions 

on collective bargaining, excessive limitations on freedom of association rights or lack of 

protection from unfair labour practices, workers on tribal territories would be left without 

any remedy for violation of their fundamental freedom of association rights, short of a 

constitutional battle. Furthermore, the exclusion proposed, with no avenue for federal 

review or overarching mechanism for appeal should there be an alleged violation of 

freedom of association, would give rise to discrimination in relation to the protection of 

trade union rights which would affect both indigenous and non-indigenous workers simply 

on the basis of their workplace location. 

Given the concerns that you have raised, it would be critically important that, at the 

very least, a complete legal and comparative review be undertaken to support assurances 

that all rights, mechanisms and remedies for the full protection of internationally 

recognized freedom of association rights are available to all workers on all tribal lands. In 

the absence of such assurances, it would appear likely that an exclusion of certain workers 

from the NLRA and its mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure to these workers 

their fundamental freedom of association rights. 

1 340'h Report of the Freedom of Association Committee, March 2006, Case No.2405, para 450: While observing that 

this case concerns the Province of British Columbia, the Committee is bound to remind the federal Government that 

the principles of freedom of association should be fully respected throughout its territory. 
74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 24757.034

-3-

In accordance with ILO procedure concerning requests for informal opinions on 

draft legislation, this communication will also be brought to the attention of the United 

States Government and the representative employers' organization, the US Council for 

International Business. 

Yours sincerely, 

Director of 

CoUi~, the International Labour 

Standards Department 
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 24757.035

J-\MhT.C\!LHl\~ 

]ERRY t\ \L\!AR 

,\ltCH\U (;.·\U.At;J!ER 

Bttu r \1on sJ 't 

Enw\Rfl J. (\:tu \ 

International Union of Operating Engineers AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS 

The Honorable Tim Walberg 

House Education & Workforce 

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor, and Pensions 

2176 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

March 28,2017 

The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan 

House Education & Workforce 

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor, and Pensions 

210 I Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Walberg and Ranking Member Sablan: 

The International Union of Operating Engineers opposes the Tribal Labor 

Sovereignty Act (H.R. 986), a bill that would eliminate the labor protections currently 

guaranteed to hundreds of thousands of American workers. Its reach extends to thousands 

of members of the Operating Engineers. The bill, introduced by Representative Rokita, 

changes current law by exempting the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) from tribal 

enterprises on tribal lands. 

While much of the case law and legislative testimony around the issue focuses on 

gaming operations, the scope of the legislation extends further to energy facilities owned 

and operated by tribes on their lands. These operations, too, would be exempted from the 

nation's fundamental labor-management framework, eliminating more members of the 

Operating Engineers' labor rights in the process. 

Employees of tribal operations should not have their right to form unions and 

bargain collectively taken away. Without the National Labor Relations Act, there is no 

guarantee that employees of tribal enterprises will be able to secure protection of these 

fundamental rights. It is worth pointing out that the overwhelming majority of the current 

workforce at tribal gaming operations is not Native American. Consequently, no new rights 

to self-governance are afforded to them. Instead, their fundamental rights in the workplace 

will be eliminated. 

The International Union of Operating Engineers opposes the selective exemption of 

labor law from the suite offederallaws with which tribal enterprises must comply. It would 

immediately eliminate the rights of Operating Engineers in a variety oflocations around the 

country and we simply find that outcome unacceptable. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

JTC:sm 

1125 StVfNHENTH \TRE£T, NW • WASHINGTON, l)(. 20036~4707 • 202~429-9100 • WWW.IUOE.ORG 
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 24757.036
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 24757.037

Blackfeet Tribal Employment Rights Office, before the commencement of work, 

must approve this listing. 

Approved key employees may be employed on the project whether or not 

they are local or non-Indian. A regular permanent employee is one who is and 

has been on the employer's or contractor's annual payroll for a period of one 

year continuously in a supervisory capacity, or is an owner of the firm. An 

employee who is hired on a project-by-project basis shall not be considered a key 

employee. 

A key employee is one who is in a top supervisory position or performs a 

critical function such that an employer would risk likely financial damage or loss 

if that task were assigned to a person unknown to the employer. The fact that an 

employee has worked for the employer on previous projects shall not qualify 

that employee as a regular, permanent employee. The Blackfeet Tribal 

Employment Rights Office Representative, on a case-by-case basis, may grant 

exceptions for superintendents and other key personnel who are not permanent 

regular employees. Any employer or contractor filling vacant employment 

positions in its organization immediately prior to undertaking work pursuant to 

a contract to take place on the Blackfeet Indian Re.servation shall set forth 

evidence acceptable to the Blackfeet Tribal Employment Rights Office 

Representative that its actions were not intended to circumvent these 

requirements. 

Section 3-107: Unions 

Unions are prohibited on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. 

Page 27 of77 
78 

[Additional submission by Mr. Scott follows:} 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 24757.038

Remarks of Congressman Bobby Scott 

Accreditation Full Committee Hearing 

April27, 2017 

Good morning. I would like to thank Chairwoman Foxx for calling 

this hearing and I'd like to thank our distinguished witnesses for being 

here today. 

The issue of quality in higher education is one that we address 

often here in Congress. The higher education system in the United States 

is one of, if not the best in the world, and we frequently spend our time 

debating how to increase access to the system or how to make college 

more affordable. And while these are topics that I'm sure we will 

continue debating, it is important that we take a step back and determine 

if we are ensuring that our higher education system maintains its high 

level of quality across all sectors for all students. 

While the federal government and state authorizers both have 

important roles to play in assuring quality, accrediting bodies are the 

true arbiters of quality in our higher education system. Their thoughtful 

peer review process is designed to ensure that institutions are living up 
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 24757.039

to their educational mission-whether it's providing students with an 

education that will be the basis for a lifetime of learning or preparing 

them to excel in a specific field or career. The title of this hearing 

alludes to the fact that while students depend on accreditors, taxpayers 

do as well. Over $150 billion in federal student aid is disbursed every 

year, and it can only go to institutions of higher education that have been 

accredited by a federally recognized accreditor. As such, there are huge 

fiscal implications to the quality and rigor of accreditation reviews. 

While the accreditation systems works well for many schools, it 

must be improved. We know that there were schools that were fully 

accredited up until the point that they closed their doors, leaving 

students out in the cold and taxpayers holding the bag. We also know 

there are schools that remain accredited while offering their students 

little chance to obtain a degree, or a credential that has little value in the 

marketplace. There is emerging research that shows in the worst cases, 

the outcomes at some fully accredited schools are so poor that students 

would have been better off going to no school rather than attending. 

2 
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 24757.040

The federal government has begun to respond to these problems in 

accreditation. Over the last two years the Department of Education 

proposed actions to make the accreditation system more transparent, and 

provide more information on the standards that accreditors use to rate 

schools. Last year the National Advisory Committee on Institutional 

Quality and Integrity, (or NACIQI) derecognized the Accrediting 

Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (or ACICS), putting other 

accreditors on notice that subpar standards and a documented history of 

turning a blind eye to bad actors would not be tolerated. 

It seems like many accreditors got the message, and we have seen 

proposed reforms from accreditors based on recommendations from the 

previous administration. I know accreditors want to improve and 

theywant to ensure that their members are still providing a top-notch 

education. But we are at a crossroads. There is no guarantee that the new 

Administration is going to take as critical a view on the need to improve 

accreditation, and I worry that the improvements that we've seen of late 

could falter without the oversight of the federal government. 

3 
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 24757.041

Accreditation can be a peer-based program designed to foster selfimprovement and be responsive to data on student outcomes. It can 

meet the needs of vastly different institutions but still use common 

terms and actions. It can respect the internal decisions and choices of an 

institution and still be transparent. We can have the best accreditation 

system in the world for the best higher education system in the world, 

and hopefully our witnesses here today will provide perspective on how 

we can do just that. Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 

4 
82 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Walberg follow:} 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 24757.042

Statement from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians Regarding 

H.R. 986, The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act 

March 29, 2017 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and 

Pensions, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians is pleased to provide you with the 

following statement for the subcommittee's record regarding the consideration of H.R. 986, 

the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017. 

Assuming that the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") has or should have any 

jurisdiction at all over tribal employers, the NLRB is intruding deeply into internal tribal 

governmental processes by disregarding the unique status of tribes as governments, 

denying them the same legislative rights as states and territories under Section 14(b) of the 

National Labor Relations Act. When the Morongo Band of Mission Indians executed its 

original Class III gaming compact with the State of California in September, 1999, the NLRB 

had never asserted jurisdiction over a tribe engaged in authorized government gaming on 

Indian lands, as prescribed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"). However, the 

State insisted, at the request of organized labor, that the compact include the following 

provision, set forth in Section 10.7: 

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Compact, this Compact shall be null and 

void if, on or before October 13, 1999, the Tribe has not provided an agreement or 

other procedure acceptable to the State for addressing organizational and 

representational rights of Class III Gaming Employees and other employees 

associated with the Tribe's Class III gaming enterprise, such as food and beverage, 

housekeeping, cleaning, bell and door services, and laundry employees at the 

Gaming Facility or any related facility, the only significant purpose of which is to 

facilitate patronage at the Gaming Facility. 

Having no choice but to accede to the State's demand, Morongo and numerous other 

California Tribes negotiated directly with the California Labor Federation. facilitated by the 

State's Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the President Pro Tempore of 

the State Senate, and reached agreement on the terms of a model Tribal Labor Relations 

Ordinance ("TLRO"), which was the only "agreement or other procedure" acceptable to the 

State. The TLRO tracks the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") in many of its key 

provisions (e.g., secret ballot elections, free speech, preservation of the right to strike, 

definitions of unfair labor practices), gives labor organizations greater access to potential 

bargaining unit employees than does the NLRA, but also respects tribal sovereignty by 

giving the tribal government a role in resolving certain disputes and establishing a 

statewide tribal labor panel to oversee representation elections and resolve certain other 

kinds of disputes. 

As required by its Compact, Morongo duly enacted its TLRO, which now has been in 

effect for more than 17 years. In all of that time, no labor organization ever has sought to 

avail itself of the rights conferred, and to which organized labor in California agreed. In fact, 

in one instance, when Morongo invited the UNITE-HERE union to exercise its rights under 

the TLRO, the union expressly disclaimed interest in exercising those rights, and since then 

has repudiated its agreement to accept the TLRO. More recently, another union seeking to 
83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 24757.043

organize a small number of Morongo's casino employees declined to proceed under the 

TLRO, and instead successfully petitioned the NLRB for a representation election. Despite 

the fact that the only federal Court of Appeals to have considered the question whether a 

Tribe may enact and enforce a right to work ordinance held that the Tribe has such a right, 

the NLRB now is asserting that Morongo's 2009 "Right to Work" ordinance, which bars 

union security agreements, constitutes an unfair labor practice, on the premise that 

Morongo's power to enact such an ordinance is preempted by the NLRA. The Morongo 

Tribal Council does not have the power to repeal an ordinance that was enacted by 

Morongo's General Membership, but the NLRB is unwilling to defer issuing a complaint in 

order to give the Tribal Council the opportunity to submit the question of repealing the 

ordinance to the General Membership, thus directly intruding into the Morongo Band's 

internal governance. 

Despite the fact that the NLRB is exercising jurisdiction over tribal gaming facilities, 

and despite the fact that certain elements in organized labor have repudiated the 

agreement reached with California's tribes in 1999, recent new or amended Class III 

gaming compacts in California have included a new TLRO that radically alters the dynamics 

of labor-management relations for those Tribes that have accepted the new TLRO as the 

price for legislative ratification of their compacts. The new TLRO preserves secret ballot 

elections, but curbs the parties' free speech rights, enables a union that has not been 

certified to represent any employees to deprive those employees of the right to strike and 

petition the NLRB, establishes an unrealistically short time limit for negotiating an initial 

collective bargaining agreement, and empowers an unelected and unaccountable 

"mediator" to impose a contract on the parties. The only "meaningful consideration" that 

the State has given to some of the Tribes that have accepted the new TLRO has been 

extension of the compact term and partial relief from financial terms that, under the Rincon 

v. Schwarzenegger decision, the State never had the right to demand, and in other instances 

an extension of the compact term and a modest increase in the number of Class Ill slot 

machines authorized (in some instances, the new compacts actually reduced the number of 

slot machines the Tribes could operate). 

Since enacting its TLRO in 1999, Morongo has kept its word about protecting its 

employees' organizational and representational rights, even as the original legal premise 

for requiring enactment of the TLRO (lack ofNLRB jurisdiction) ceased to exist. Enacting 

the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act will not deprive Morongo's gaming employees of the 

rights they enjoy under the TLRO, but have never sought to exercise. It will, however, 

accord Morongo and other recognized Tribes the status as governments on which IGRA is 

premised, and that various other federal statutes, such as the Tribal Governmental Tax 

Status Act, the Clean Air Act, etc. also accord. 

In conclusion, to give Tribes true parity with states and territories in being excluded from 

the definition of "employer" under the National Labor Relations Act, Congress should 

provide that the TLSA preempts any state law or tribal-state agreement that prescribes or 

requires that a tribe enact a specific labor-management relations regime. 

Thank you for your attention to the concerns of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. 
84 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 24757.044

TESTIMONY OF HON. LARRY ROMANELLI 

OGEMA, LITTLE RIVER BAND OF OTTAWA INDIANS 

ON H.R. 986, THE TRIBAL LABOR SOVEREIGNTY ACT OF 2017 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR AND PENSIONS 

APRIL 5, 2017 

My name is Larry Romanelli and I am the Ogema for the Little River Band of Ottawa 

Indians. I am honored to submit this testimony in strong support ofH.R. 986, the proposed 

Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of2017. 

The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians is a tribal government enjoying a governmentto-government relationship with the United States. Our ancestors entered into seven treaties with 

the United States, from 1795 to 1855, all recognizing the Michigan Ottawa (or Odawa) bands as 

sovereign governments. In 1994 Congress reaffirmed our Band's governmental status in the 

Little Traverse Bay Bands ofOdawa Indians and Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act. See 

Pub. L. 103-325, 108 Stat. 2156, codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1300k-l300k-7. 

Our Tribe is located within our ancestral homelands in Michigan's Lower Peninsula, 

along Lake Michigan's eastern shore and within what are today Manistee, Mason, Wexford and 

Lake counties. As Congress has recognized, the Band has continuously existed as a distinct 

political and cultural community within our ancestral homeland "from treaty times to the 

present."1 We are governed by a Constitution that was adopted pursuant to section 16 of the 

Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. § 476, and approved by the Secretary of the 

Interior pursuant to that same Act. Under the Band's Constitution we are governed by three 

branches of government: a legislative branch acting through the office of the Tribal Council; an 

executive branch directed by the office of the Tribal Ogema; and a judicial branch comprised of 

the Band's Tribal Court and Tribal Court of Appeals. Pursuant to the Band's Constitution, the 

Band exercises jurisdiction over its members, its territory, and all persons who come upon the 

Band's territory or whose activities pose a direct threat to the health or welfare of our tribal 

community. In so doing, the Band enjoys and exercises the same privileges and immunities 

accorded to every other federally recognized tribal government in the United States. 

The Band's federally-approved Constitution empowers the Tribal Council "[t]o exercise 

the inherent powers of the ... Band by establishing laws ... to govern the conduct of members 

of the Little River Band and other persons within its jurisdiction." Pursuant to this federallyapproved authority, the Council in 2005 enacted a Fair Employment Practices Code to govern a 

variety of employment and labor matters arising within the Band's jurisdiction on tribal lands, 

including rights and remedies for employment discrimination, family medical leave, minimum 

wages, and other matters. In 2007, the Council added Article XVI to the Band's Fair 

1 See H.R. Rep. No. 103-621 at 7 (1994) ("Little Traverse Bay Bands ofOdawa Indians and the Little River Band of 

Ottawa Indians Act"); S. Rep. No. 103-260 at 5-6 (1994) ("Reaffirming and Clarifying the Federal Relationships of 

the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians as Distinct Federally 

Recognized Indian Tribes"). See also 25 U.S.C. § 1300k(4) (referring to Band's "ancestral homeland" in Michigan). 

151967-1 
85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 24757.045

Employment Practices Code to govern labor organizations and collective bargaining within its 

governmental departments, agencies, authorities, subordinate organizations, and commissions. 

Later amendments (including Article XVII) required the exhaustion of tribal remedies and 

prevented outside interferences with the Band's labor law processes. 

Taken together, the Band's Fair Employment Practices Code was the result of 

considerable legislative process by the Tribal Council and reflected critically important policy 

choices necessary to ensure a fair balance between the needs of the tribal government-a public 

sector employer responsible to the Band's entire citizenry-and the interests of Band employees 

who wish to engage in collective bargaining. 

The result of this balance are provisions which: 

>- define the rights and duties of employers, employees, and labor organizations 

within the Band's governmental operations with respect to collective 

bargaining, including the scope of the duty to bargain in good faith; 

>- require labor organizations engaged in activities within the Band's 

governmental operations to hold a tribal license; 

>- provide a process for defining appropriate bargaining units of employees; 

>- establish standards for union election campaigns; 

>- define procedures for union elections and methods for resolving disputes that 

could arise (including mediation, fact-finding and arbitration); 

>- establish procedures and remedies for alleged unfair labor practices; 

· >- prohibit strikes against the Band's governmental operations; and 

>- create dispute and impasse resolution processes, including a waiver of tribal 

sovereign immunity for actions brought in tribal court. 

In adopting Articles XVI and XVII, the Band considered public sector labor laws adopted 

by the Federal Government and many States to govern their own respective public employees. 

For instance, the Band adopted a provision, not dissimilar from the labor regime in place 

for federal employees, prohibiting strikes. Under federal law, it is an unfair labor practice for any 

federal-employee union to call for or to condone a strike, 2 and it is even a crime for a federal 

employee to engage in a strike.3 Many States and municipalities have similar anti-strike 

prohibitions, and under Michigan law "[a] public employee shall not strike."4 A strike of public 

employees could bring government to its knees and stop the very functioning of government, 

which is why no-strike provisions are common in the public employment sector. The Band's 

Fair Employment Practices Code includes a no-strike provision. At the same time, it also 

includes a prohibition on public employer lockouts. 

Similarly, the Band's Code bars collective bargaining over Band law, just as federal law 

likewise bars collective bargaining over federallaw. 5 Thus, for instance, the Band's laws 

'5 u.s.c. § 71!6(b)(7). 3 18 u.s.c. § 1918(3). 4 Mich. Camp. Laws § 423.202. 5 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(l4)(C). 

2 

151967-1 
86 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 24757.046

regarding tribal member employment preferences in hiring and promotions, and regarding 

random drug testing, are not a proper subject for collective bargaining under the Band's Fair 

Employment Practices Code. 

Since 2008, the Band has entered into several collective bargaining agreements, all with 

bargaining units that have selected the United Steel Workers Union to represent them. There has 

also been one unsuccessful decertification vote, one unsuccessful unionization vote, and three 

active drives which led to an insufficient number of signatures. Typical topics that would come 

up in union negotiations included health care costs, scheduling issues, and the handling of 

personnel grievances. As this early history demonstrated, the Band is certainly not anti-union. 

Nonetheless, in March 2008, Local 406 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 

filed charges with the NLRB alleging that the mere existence of the Band's Fair Employment 

Practices Code was an unfair labor practice and a violation of the National Labor Relations Act 

(NLRA). The Board's General Counsel agreed, and so began an 8-year full scale attack on the 

Band's government and on our sovereignty. 

The Board's General Counsel, and then the Board, took the position that Congress 

intended the NLRA to apply to sovereign Indian tribal governments, alone among all other 

sovereign government employers in the United States, including States, counties, cities, the 

District of Columbia, territories--even port authorities.6 The Board's position was rooted in a 

sharply-divided 2004 Board decision7 and a 2007 D.C. Circuit 3-judge panel decision (San 

Manuel), 8 but ignored a contrary 2002 full-court Tenth Circuit decision (San Juan).9 

On appeal, a divided Sixth Circuit panel affirmed the Board's decision. 10 Dissenting 

Judge McKeague criticized the decision because it "contribute[s] to a judicial remaking of the 

law that is authorized neither by Congress nor the Supreme Court." 11 He added that "the 

majority's decision impinges on tribal sovereignty, encroaches on Congress's plenary and 

exclusive authority over Indian affairs, conflicts with Supreme Court precedent, and unwisely 

creates a circuit split." !d. Days later another Sixth Circuit panel considering a different Tribe's 

challenge to NLRB jurisdiction unanimously agreed with dissenting Judge McKeague, but that 

second panel was required to follow the Little River decision. 12 

All told, 13 federal appellate judges have concluded that Congress never intended the 

NLRA to apply to tribal governments, while 9 have taken the opposite position. This is precisely 

the kind of situation that cries out for Congress to makes its understanding clear. Congress wrote 

the law, and it is for Congress to clarify its intentions. And since the NLRA was written with the 

6 361 NLRB No. 45 (2014), adopting 359 NLRB No. 84 (2013). 7 341 NLRB 1055. 8 San Manuel indian Bingo & Casino v. NLRB, 475 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 9 NLRB v. Pueblo of San Juan, 276 F.3d 1186 (lOth Cir. 2002) (en bane). See also Dobbs v. Anthem Blue Cross & 

Blue Shield, 600 F.3d 1275 (lOth Cir. 20 10) ("Congressional silence exempted Indian tribes from the National Labor 

Relations Act"). 10 NLRB v. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government, 788 F.3d 537 (6th Cir. 2015). 

II fd. at 561. 12 Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort v. NLRB, 791 F.3d 648 (6th Cir. 2015). 

3 

151967·1 
87 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 24757.047

express purpose of regulating "private industry," 13 and not governmental employers, the law 

should be clarified to make perfectly clear that Indian tribes, as much as any other government, 

are excluded from the Act's coverage. Among other things, this is a matter of basic fairness and 

parity. 

The NLRB's campaign in recent years represents a direct attack on our Tribe's 

sovereignty and the sovereignty of all Indian tribes in the Nation. The Federal government has a 

duty to protect and enhance tribal institutions, not to undermine and destroy them. Yet absent 

congressional intervention, the NLRB will continue attacking sovereign tribal governments 

located outside of the Tenth Circuit, forcing Tribes to negotiate over their own civil service 

systems, their tribal laws and customs, their judicial remedies, their sovereign immunity, and 

even their levels of tribal appropriations. A few employees will be able to hold an entire 

government and its citizenry hostage to their demands, on pain of a strike that would bring the 

very wheels of government to a halt-a result President Roosevelt called "unthinkable and 

intolerable." 14 This unabashed discrimination against tribal governments cannot be permitted to 

continue. 

It has been argued that Congress's omission in not specifically listing tribal governments 

as excluded employers means Congress must have meant to include them within the Act's scope. 

This is nonsense. In 1935, the general view of the law was that Indian tribes were 

instrumentalities of the federal government itself. 15 Indeed, the 1934 Indian Reorganization 

Act16 and the 1936 Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act17 make it abundantly clear that Congress in 

1935 understood Indian tribes to be sovereign governments. Between 1935 and 2004-that is, 

for nearly 70 years-the Board consistently treated Indian tribes as exempt employers, 18 just as it 

consistently placed under the government exclusion all manner of other government employers 

never specifically mentioned in the Act's section 2(2) exclusion. 19 

Only when it comes to Indian tribes did the Board suddenly make an about-face in 2004, 

and then only because at that point some tribal governments had become successful in raising 

revenues to fund critical government services despite the absence of any meaningful tax base. 

But raising revenue is a quintessential function of government, without which government itself 

could not exist, which is precisely why the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the view that 

13 NLRB v. Catholic Bishop, 440 U.S. 490,504 (1979). 14 Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal 

Service" (Aug. 16, 1937), available at http://www.presidcncy.ucsb.edu/wsl?pid~l5445. 

15 Washington v. Confederated Tribes, 447 U.S. 134, 183 n.8 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in part and dissenting 

in part) (describing cases from 1910s and 1920s); see also McClanahan v. State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164, 169 

(1973) (collecting cases). 16 25 u.s.c. §§ 461-479. 17 25 u.s.c. §§ 501-509. 18 See, e.g., Fort Apache Timber Co., 226 NLRB 503 (1976). 19 29 C.F.R. §102.7 (l935)("[t]he term State as used in[§ 152(2) to) include the District ofCo1umbia and all States, 

Territories, and possessions of the United States," although none are listed in section 2(2) of the Act); ChaparroFe bus v. Int"l Longshoremen Ass 'n, 983 F.2d 325, 329-30 (1st Cir. 1992) (commercial instrumentality of Puerto 

Rico); Virgin Islands Port Auth. v. S.l.U. de P.R., 354 F.Supp. 312, 313 (D.V.I. 1973), a.ff'd on other grounds, 494 

F.2d 452,453 n.2 (3d Cir. 1974) (commercial instrumentality of Virgin Islands); Brown v. Port Auth. Police 

Superior Officers Ass 'n, 661 A.2d 312, 315-16 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995) (Port Authority ofNew York and 

New Jersey created by interstate compact). 

4 

151967·1 
88 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 24757.048

tribal government immunities vanish when tribes successfully raise revenues to fund "core 

government functions," specifically including through gaming operations.20 The NLRB's 

inventive interpretation of the NLRA disregards all this. Indeed, it punishes tribes for their 

success in becoming more self-governing and independent. 

In the course of legislating on the topic of tribal gaming, Congress could not have been 

clearer in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that tribal gaming activities are a governmental 

function. 21 After all, tribes can only conduct Class Ill gaming through an intergovernmental 

compact with the surrounding State, just as the Band has done with the State of Michigan. Our 

tribal government has the sole proprietary interest in and responsibility for gaming activities on 

our federal tribal trust lands, and all revenues generated from those activities fund the Band's 

governmental services. These revenues support a wide array of government services, including 

health care; counseling and support for families and children; natural resource management; 

public safety; our tribal judiciary; and our prosecutorial services. Our Band's gaming revenues 

account for 81% of the budget for our Judiciary and our prosecutor's office; 80% of the budget 

for mental health and substance abuse services at our clinic; 78% of the budget for our 

Department of Family Services; and 75% of the budget for our Department of Public Safety. 

Congress, the Supreme Court, and our actions on the ground all show that tribal gaming 

is a quintessential government activity without which our government simply would not 

function. For the Board to now try and cleave these government functions off from the rest of 

our government, declaring one part subject to the NLRA, and the other part possibly not, 

represents nothing less than an unsanctioned seizure of agency authority that Congress never 

conferred on the Board. 

And here I should be clear. Contrary to some mis-statements, the Board has never said 

that the Act does not apply when Indian tribes are engaged in purely intramural or treatyprotected activities; it has merely said that it will consider, in its sole discretion, whether to apply 

the Act's private sector regime in such cases on a case-by-case basis, weighing the interests of 

labor law against federal Indian law. With a stroke of a pen the Board in 2004 suddenly became 

a self-appointed expert on federal Indian policy-all without a hint that Congress ever imagined 

such a role for the Board. 

In our battle with the Board over our Band's Fair Employment Practices Code, the Board 

targeted three provisions involving licensing, drug and alcohol testing, and strikes. Yet each of 

these provisions is vital to our tribal government operations, and to securing the Band's future. 

Let me discuss each one in turn. 

For instance, our Code required licensure of unions and individuals seeking to organize at 

our casino because licensure is critical to maintaining the integrity of the Tribe's gaming 

operations. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's legislative history (including subsequent 

hearings) details at length the need to prevent the infiltration of organized crime into tribal 

20 Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 34 S. Ct. 2024, 2043 (2014). 21 25 u.s.c. §§ 2701-2721' 

5 

151967-1 
89 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 24757.049

gaming operations. 22 One key tool to address this threat is to require licensure and background 

checks of key parties conducting any activity within casino property. This is similar to the 

"certification" requirement imposed upon unions in several States, including Michigan, Nevada 

and Pennsylvania. Licensure is simply good policy and fulfills Congress's interest in ensuring 

that organized crime never infiltrates Indian gaming. Yet, the NLRB attacked this very policy as 

an unfair labor practice. If that is the case, then Nevada's, Michigan's and Pennsylvania's 

comparable certification policies are equally offensive and should be struck down. But the 

Board isn't interested in parity among governments; its goal instead appears to be to discriminate 

against tribal governments. 

Our Code also prohibited collective bargaining over our Band's alcohol and drug testing 

policies. At Little River our policy is clear: you must be drug and alcohol free if you want to 

work for the Band. This decision was based on the all-too-well-known devastating impacts 

drugs and alcohol have had in tribal communities, and on our tribal government's decision to 

stem this tide by enacting strict testing requirements. Our laws were consistent with federal law 

requiring that all tribes maintain a drug free work place. It would be difficult, if not unlawful, 

for the Band to have one law in place to comply with federal law for one set of our public 

workforce, and have a different law in effect to comply with the NLRB's demands for a different 

part of our workforce. Yet that is precisely where we now stand, and the Board has put the 

Band's compliance with the Federal drug free work place laws in jeopardy, together with the 

significant federal funds we receive that are tied to that federal prohibition. 

Finally, our Code prohibits strikes because strikes represent a direct and existential threat 

to our very government. A strike against the Band's gaming operations is a direct assault on our 

tribe's sovereignty. A strike would mean the cessation of most essential government functions, 

including our courts and prosecutor's office, putting our citizenry at grave risk. The Band's 

decision to prohibit strikes in all its operations is no different from the decisions of many States 

and local governments that prohibit strikes, including New York's prohibition against strikes at 

its off-track betting facilities, and Massachusetts's prohibition against strikes by its lottery 

employees. Like many other public employers, our government balanced the need to fairly 

resolve workplace impasses with our government's need to ensure its revenue operations remain 

open. Although strikes were barred, we allowed binding arbitration to fairly address workers' 

interests while government operations remain open. 

Our no-strike provision was particularly critical in our rural Michigan setting, because in 

the event of a strike we could never find sufficient licensed and qualified workers to call in as 

replacements. There can therefore be no doubt that a strike would shutter the casino. For this 

reason, even the threat of a strike would place our government in an untenable position and force 

the Band to capitulate to any union's demands. The public at large-- our tribal citizenry--

would be hostage to the unions. Good faith negotiations would be impossible given the 

enormous leverage a union would wield. In this very real way, the Band would lose its power to 

govern itself. If federal protection of tribal sovereignty means anything, it means a federal 

responsibility to keep this from happening. 

22 See generally, Gaming Activities on Indian Reservations and Lands, S.Hrg. 100-341; Hearing on S. 2230, Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act Amendments Act of /994, S.Hrg. 103-874. 

6 
90 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 24757.050

For now, the Board has prevailed and we have complied with the Board's Order. At this 

point it is perfectly plain that the only way to stop the Board, the only way to restore our 

authority to govern ourselves and to protect the interests of our citizens, the only way to restore 

parity between us and all other governments within this great Nation, is for Congress to act now 

and enact H.R. 986. This bill will make unmistakably clear what everyone understood for the 

first 70 years of the NLRA's implementation: that all governments, including tribal 

governments, are excluded from the NLRA. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony for the record on behalf of the 

Little River Band of Ottawa Indians. 

7 

151967-
91 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow. 

Mr. Cladoosby’s responses were not submitted at the time of printing.] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 24757.055
92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 24757.056

Rep. Sablan (Northem Mariana Islands) 

I. The Blackfeet Tribe in Montana adopted the "Blackfeet Tribal Employment Rights 

Ordinance" which states in Section 3-107: "Unions are prohibited on the Blackfeet Indian 

Reservation." 

a. Does this language create a "union free zone" on Blackfeet tribal lands? 

b. IfH.R. 986 were enacted, could the Blackfeet Indians maintain this "union free 

zone" with legal certainty? 

c. Would H.R. 986 make it possible for other Indian tribes to create or amend 

existing tribal labor ordinances which create union free zones at commercial 

enterprises on tribal lands? 

d. Do any of the other 567 recognized Indian tribes have ordinances which prohibit 

unions or union activity on a tribe's lands? Please provide a list of such ordinances 

and the name and location of the tribe which issued such ordinance. 

2 
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 24757.057

JOEWllSON,SOUTHCAROt.INA 

~~~~t~1:t~h~~~::YlVAN~ SRETTGiill-IR!e.K!;NTUCKY 

~g~:~L~~A~~~~YLVANl>\ lUKE MESSER, INDIANA 

SRAOLEY!!\'RNE,AV.!!AWI 

OAVlOBAAT,VlRGINIA 

GLENN GROTHMAN, WISCONSIN 

EL!SESTEFAN!I(,N&.WYORK 

RIC'.KW. AllEN, GEORGIA JIISONLE:WI$,MINNESOTA 

FRANCIS ROONEY. FLORIDA ?AUt.MITCHfll,MICHIQAN: 

TCM GAMETT,JR, VIRGINIA 

LlO\'OKSMUCKER,I"I1NNSYl.VANIA 

~O~rs;:~~.~~ IV, G~ORGIA 

May 23,2017 

Mr. John Gribbon 

Califomia Political Director 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

2176 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6100 

UNITE HERE International Union, AFL-CIO 

243 Golden Gate Ave 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Mr. Gribbon: 

ROBERT C 'OOBEIY" SCOTT, V<RGINIA, R@I<FIO!,I/hmbcr 

SUSANA OAVJS,CAt!FORNl>\ 

RADtM.OOIJAlVA,ARIZOWi 

JOECOIJRlNE\',CONNECTICVT 

MA.RCtA L FUOG!.', OHfO 

~~~~=~LAN. fREOERJCAS.WilSON.FtORIOA 

SUZANNe ElONAMICI, OREGON 

MARK TAKANO, CAliFORNIA 

AlMA S. ADAMS, NORTH CAROLINA MARKOI.:SA\Jl.N!ER,CAI.If'ORN ... 

OONALO NOII.CROSS, NfW JERSEY 

USA BWNHtOCJ.ie,STER, DElAWARE: 

RAJA KR!SHNAMOORTH!, IlliNOIS 

CAROL SHEA·PORTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 

AORIANO ESPAillAT, NEW YORK 

Thank you for testifying at the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 

hearing entitled "H.R. 986, Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017 ." I appreciate yom 

participation. 

Please find enclosed additional questions submitted by a Committee member following the 

hearing. Please provide written responses no later than June 6, 2017, for inclusion in the official 

hearing record. Responses should be sent to Callie Hannan of the Committee staff, and she can 

be contacted at (202) 225-7101. 

Thank you, again, for your contribution to the work of the Committee. 

~~~ Chainna~erg/ Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 

Enclosure 

CC: The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan 

Ranking Member, Subconunittcc on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 24757.058

Rep. Sablan (Northcm Mariana Islands) 

1. In your oral testimony, you stated "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been 

held not to apply to Indian tribes. The only way employees oftribal enterprises subject to 

harassment and other forms of discrimination may speak out about them with any degree 

of safety is through the NLRA. It would also repeal Davis-Bacon for the building and 

construction trades on Tribal lands." 

a. Since Title VII does not apply to Indian tribes, please explain how the NLRA 

serves as a backstop for employees facing harassment or discrimination? 

b. Can you clarify your statement regarding Davis Bacon on tribal lands? 

2. Your testimony pointed out that the m<Uority of employees at tribal casinos are hot 

members of Indian tribes, or errrolled members of the tribe operating the casino. Please 

provide examples where this is the case. 

2 
95 

Mr. Gribbon response to questions submitted for the record follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 24757.059
96 

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 24757.060

Question 2: 

Answer 2: 

Your testimony pointed out that the majority of employees at tribal casinos are not 

members af Indian tribes, or enrolled members of the tribe operating the casino. Please 

provide examples where this is the case. 

Examples of the enrolled memberships of some of the federally recognized tribes in 

California which are operating some of the largest casino enterprises in the state (based 

on recently available data): 

Yoche Deha Band of Wintun Indians with 36 enrolled members operate a casino in Yolo 

County, California employing over 2,000 workers. 

The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in Riverside, California has an enrolled 

membership of 21 adults. San Manuel Band operates a casino employing more than 

2,500 workers. 

The United Auburn Indian Community in Northern California has an enrolled 

membership of 170. Their Thunder Valley Casino and Resort in Placer County, California 

employs over 2,500 workers. 

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians with an enrolled membership of 410 

operates 2 casinos in Palm Springs, California employing over 2,500 workers. 

As the numbers demonstrate, the vast majority of employees at these casinos are not enrolled members 

of the owner tribe. 

Please let me know if you need any further information. 

~~~~~A Jack Gribbon 

California Political Director