2015: Schweikert Voted For Exempting Tribes And Tribally Owned Business On Indian Lands From Federal Labor Laws. In November 2015, Schweikert voted to exempt exempt tribes and tribally owned business on Indian lands from federal labor laws. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would have "amend[ed] the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to exempt tribes and tribally-owned businesses on Indian lands from federal labor laws by providing that any enterprise or institution owned or operated by an Indian tribe and located on its lands is not considered an employer." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 249 to 177. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 633, 11/17/15; Congressional Quarterly, 11/17/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 511]
1976: National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Decided That An Indian Tribe Had Sovereignty Over An Indian Mining Company Located On Indian Land. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA; PL 74-198) was enacted in 1935 to govern labor relations in the private commercial sector, protect the rights of employees and employers, encourage collective bargaining and curtail certain harmful private sector labor and management practices. The definition of 'employer' in the act excludes federal, state and local governments. For several decades, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) upheld the sovereignty of tribal governments, finding that federal statute governing labor relations does not apply to certain enterprises operated by tribes on tribal land. The board's first decision, issued in 1976, determined that an Indian tribe had jurisdiction over an Indian mining company located on Indian land. In this case the tribal council was the government and was directing the utilization of tribal resources through a tribal enterprise on its reservation, and the commercial enterprise was determined to be a 'governmental entity.' This case set the precedent for following cases." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/13/15]
2004: NLRB Revisited Prior Decision, Determined That NLRA Does Not Preclude It From Jurisdiction Over An Indian Tribe. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In 2004, however, NLRB revisited its prior decisions and found them to be faulty. The board determined that the NLRA does not preclude it from jurisdiction over an Indian tribe and that federal Indian policy allows application of federal law to Indian tribes, even regarding the use of tribal land. Because a decision in a separate case expanded jurisdiction of federal law over Native American tribes, the 9th Circuit Court enumerated exceptions recognized by federal courts to limit that jurisdiction, specifically: when the law 'touches exclusive rights of self-government in purely intramural matters'; when the application of the law would abrogate treaty rights; or when there is 'proof' in the statutory language or legislative history that Congress did not intend the law to apply to Indian tribes. The NLRB subsequently adopted these standards. Since its decision in 2004, NLRB determines whether it has jurisdiction over a Native American business based on whether the activity is commercial or constitutes traditional governmental functions." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/13/15]
Bill Supporters Say That The Bill Is Consistent With The Principle Of Native American Self-Government. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill argue that it is necessary to preserve the acknowledged federal principle of Native American self-government. Tribal government parity is a priority for tribes, and tribal governments have worked with Congress to reaffirm their sovereignty under the Violence Against Women Act, federal unemployment taxation and general welfare tax issues. They say that the NLRB has changed direction in its application of the law in ways that are fundamentally different from other federal labor laws, in that it allows third parties to come onto tribal lands and organize employees in a manner that could interfere with tribal political elections. Since federal and state governments are not subject to the NLRA, they say tribal governments should also be exempt." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/13/15]
Opponents Note That The Bill Would Eliminate The Right Of Workers To Representation And That Other Federal Labor Laws Such As OSHA Are Placed Above Tribal Self-Governance Right. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill argue that NLRB is only exercising jurisdiction over commercial enterprises, not over enterprises that are intrinsic to Native American self-government. They say the measure would eliminate the right of workers to representation and that the federal government, as a member of the International Labor Organization, is obligated to promote these rights. They note that tribes are subject to other federal labor laws such as OSHA and the Family and Medical Leave Act and that those responsibilities are placed above the tribal right to self-governance." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/13/15]
Bill Would Prevent Hundreds Of Thousands Of Workers From Forming Unions. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill, [opponents] say, would directly harm hundreds of thousands of workers by eliminating the right of employees of tribal enterprises to form unions, thereby depressing wages. In fact, of the 600,000 workers employed in tribal casinos alone, 75% of the workers are not tribal members and have no say in the tribal laws governing their workplaces." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/13/15]