{
  "id": "R44270",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44270",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 447213,
      "date": "2015-11-13",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T17:56:51.004927",
      "title": "The NLRB's Enforcement of the NLRA Against Tribal Employers and the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015, H.R. 511 and S. 248",
      "summary": "The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides workers with the right to collectively bargain with employers and requires employers to bargain in good faith. The NLRA excludes from the definition of the term \u201cemployer\u201d \u201cthe United States or any wholly owned government corporation or any state or political subdivision thereof.\u201d The NLRA does not specify whether Indian tribal employers are covered. \nPrior to 2004, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency responsible for enforcing the NLRA, followed a rule that excluded from the NLRA tribal employers located on tribal land, but included tribal employers located off of tribal land. In 2004, in San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, the NLRB adopted a new position and held that the NLRA applied to all tribal employers, regardless of their location, unless its application would interfere with treaty rights or quintessentially governmental functions. In San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino v. NLRB, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the NLRB\u2019s application of the NLRA to the tribal casino. \nIn recent years, the NLRB has asserted jurisdiction over a number of tribal casinos, relying on its analysis in San Manuel. In June 2015, in Little River Band of Ottawa Indians v. NLRB, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the NLRB\u2019s reasoning and application of the NLRA to a tribal casino, despite the fact that the tribe had adopted its own labor ordinance to regulate tribal labor relations and asserted that application of the NLRA would impair this exercise of its inherent sovereignty. In July 2015, the same court considered whether the NLRA applied to another tribe\u2019s casino. Because the panel was bound to follow the precedent of Little River Band, it upheld the NLRB assertion of jurisdiction. However, the panel indicated that it would have applied a different analysis and reached a different result, but for the Little River Band precedent.\nThe Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015, H.R. 511 and S. 248, would amend the NLRA\u2019s definition of employer to exclude \u201cany enterprise or institution owned and operated by an Indian tribe located on its Indian lands.\u201d In effect, it appears that the bills would reinstate a location-based test similar to the one used by the NLRB prior to 2004, when it decided San Manuel.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44270",
          "sha1": "30ede5b97efd137aee6c123570f5cd3c095ba6eb",
          "filename": "files/20151113_R44270_30ede5b97efd137aee6c123570f5cd3c095ba6eb.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44270",
          "sha1": "ed26cfa92f30160bbc3394b3316ec52cbf61f26d",
          "filename": "files/20151113_R44270_ed26cfa92f30160bbc3394b3316ec52cbf61f26d.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}