Source: http://casino-gambling-reports.com/GamblingStudy/TribalGambling/page17.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:35:53+00:00

Document:
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) permits employees to form unions and to bargain collectively with their employer. The law does not contain language that expressly applies the Act to Indian tribes nor does it expressly exempt Indian tribes from the Act’s coverage. However, the Act does expressly exempt government entities.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), which hears disputes brought under the Act in the first instance, has addressed the issue of whether the Act applies to Indian tribes and has twice held that a tribally owned and operated business located on Indian lands is exempt from the Act under the Act’s exemption for government entities. Similarly, at least one court has ruled that the NLRA does not apply to tribal governments.
The Federal District Court for the District of Oregon expressly agreed with the Board’s position in Fort Apache Timber and similarly ruled that the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation was “not an employer for purposes of [the NLRA].” 92 The court held, however, that a business operated by a tribal corporation was covered by the NLRA.
86 Vicki J. Limas, Application of Federal Labor and Employment Statutes to Native American Tribes: Respecting Sovereignty and Achieving Consistency, 26 ARIZ. L. J. 681 at 682. 87 Donovan v. Coeur d’Alene Tribal Farm, 751 F. 2d 1113, 1115 (CA9 1985); Reich v. Mashantucket Sand & Gravel, 95 F. 3d 174 (CA2 1996). For example, in Mashantucket, OSHA was found to apply to the Mashantucket Pequot Sand & Gravel operation through its activities in interstate commerce, but recognized Tribe’s right to establish its own tribal OSHA system. 88 Smart v. State Farm Insurance Co., 868 F. 2d 929 (CA7 1989); Lumber Industry Pension Fund v. Warm Springs Forest Products, 939 F. 2d 683 (CA9 1991). 89 Reich v. Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, 4 F. 3d 490 (CA7 1993). The Court ruled against the plaintiff on the grounds that the FLSA’s police exemption applied. The Court never reached or decided the question of whether or not FLSA applied directly to the tribal government. 90 Ft. Apache Timber Co. 226 N. L. R. B. 503 (1976). 91 Ibid. 92 103 L. R. R. M. (BNA) 2749 (D. Or. 1980). 93 Navajo Nation v. N. L. R. B., 288 F. 2d 162 (D. C. Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 366 U. S. 928 (1961). 94 Devils Lake Sioux Manufacturing Corporation, 243 N. L. R. B. 163 (1979).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.