Navajo Tribe v. NLRB

Decision Date02 March 1961
Docket NumberNo. 15735.,15735.
Citation288 F.2d 162
PartiesNAVAJO TRIBE, a Treaty Tribe of Indians et al., Appellants v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. Joseph F. McPherson, Los Angeles, Cal., with whom Messrs. Norman M. Littell and Charles J. Alexander, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. Duane B. Beeson, Atty., N. L. R. B., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., and Herman M. Levy, Atty., N. L. R. B., were on the brief, for appellee N. L. R. B. Mr. Russell Specter, Atty., N. L. R. B., also entered an appearance for appellee N. L. R. B.

Mr. Joseph M. Stone, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Robert J. Connerton, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee International Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, AFL-CIO.

Mr. David E. Feller, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Jerry D. Anker, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee United Steelworkers of America.

Messrs. J. Albert Woll, Robert C. Mayer, and Theodore J. St. Antoine, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellee International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO.

Mr. Alfred A. Colby, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for appellee Texas-Zinc Minerals Corp.

Before MAGRUDER, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit,* and PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This case presents the question whether the Navajo Tribe of Indians is entitled to an injunction preventing the National Labor Relations Board from holding a representation election in a mining plant located on the Navajo Reservation. Suit seeking that relief was brought in the District Court by the Tribe and one of its members against the Labor Board, its members, and three interested unions. The corporation owning the plant intervened as a party plaintiff. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction; defendants moved for dismissal of the complaint. The court granted the defendants' motion and denied that of the plaintiffs. This appeal followed.

The District Court's principal findings of fact are as follows:

"1. Plaintiff-intervenor Texas-Zinc Minerals Corporation operates a uranium concentrate mill at Mexican Hat, Utah within the Navajo reservation and annually ships materials in excess of $5,000,000 in value from the Company\'s plant to the Atomic Energy Commission\'s receiving station in Colorado. This Company is party to a twenty-five year lease with plaintiff Navajo Tribe covering the land on which the mill is located, which lease was executed in 1956. About 87 persons, of whom 47 are members of the Navajo Tribe and 40 are non-Indians, are employed at the mill.
"2. On May 12, 1959, the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO filed a petition with the Board under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act requesting that an election be held to determine whether the Texas-Zinc Minerals Corporation\'s employees wished to be represented by it for collective bargaining purposes.
"3. At the representation hearing before the Board, the Navajo Tribe intervened specially for the purpose of contesting the Board\'s jurisdiction in the proceeding. The Company, the Steelworkers, and two other unions which intervened in the case, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO and International Hodcarriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, participated at the hearing.
"4. On February 11, 1960, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election in which it determined that the Board has jurisdiction under the Act to administer its provisions with respect to interstate businesses located on the Navajo reservation, and particularly that the Board had such jurisdiction in the case before it, and directed that a representation election be held as requested by the Steelworkers\' petition.
"5. On March 23, 1960, plaintiff instituted the instant suit for the purpose of enjoining the Board from conducting a representation hearing. The gravamen of the complaint is that the Board lacks jurisdiction to conduct an election because (1) the Navajo Tribe has plenary authority of self-government with respect to the members of its Tribe and as to all activity conducted upon its reservation, except to the extent that the federal government has expressly limited such authority, and that pursuant to its power of self-government the Tribe has enacted resolutions forbidding all unionization activities on its reservation, and (2) the National Labor Relations Act was not intended to apply to commerce with an Indian Tribe or to interstate commerce resulting from business activities located on an Indian reservation, nor did Congress exercise its constitutional power in the National Labor Relations Act to regulate commerce `with the Indian tribes.\'
"Following the filing of the complaint Texas-Zinc Minerals Corporation filed a motion to intervene as plaintiff, and attached thereto its proposed complaint in which it requested, in its prayer for relief, only that the representation election be enjoined until final judicial determination of the issues raised by the pleadings in the proceeding before this Court."

The District Court also stated the following conclusions of law:

"1. The operations of Texas-Zinc Minerals Corporation\'s plant located on the Navajo Tribe\'s reservation, as described in the complaint herein, affect interstate commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
"2. The provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, including inter alia the provisions which authorize the Board to conduct representation proceedings, are applicable to the Texas-Zinc Minerals Corporation plant involved in this case, and the Board is accordingly authorized to entertain the petition described in the complaint herein for a representation election among the employees of such plant.
"3. The complaints of plaintiffs Navajo\'s Tribe and intervenor Texas-Zinc Minerals Corporation fail to state claims warranting relief."

The quoted findings of fact by the District Court are not substantially questioned by appellants. The conclusions of law, however, are vigorously assailed. Appellants' central contentions are that under the Treaty of June 1, 1868, 15 Stat. 667, between the Navajo Tribe and the United States, the Tribe has broad powers of self government, including the right to exclude outsiders;1 that the decision of the Tribal Council to prevent union activity on its Reservation was within its authority; and that the National...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • National Labor Relations Bd. & Local Union No. 1385 v. Pueblo of San Juan, Nos. 99-2011
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • January 11, 2002
    ...Phillips Petroleum, 803 F.2d at 555 (using the NLRA as an example of a statute that established a national policy); Navajo Tribe v. NLRB, 288 F.2d 162, 164 (D.C. Cir. 1961) ("Congress has adopted a national labor policy, superseding the local policies of the States and the Indian tribes, in......
  • U.S. v. White
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 11, 1975
    ...U.S. 580, 5 S.Ct. 247, 28 L.Ed. 780 (1884); The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 616, 20 L.Ed. 227 (1878); Navajo Tribe v. NLRB, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 378, 288 F.2d 162 (1961); Seneca Nation of Indians v. Brucker, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 262 F.2d 27 (1958); Ex parte Green, 123 F.2d 862 (2d Cir......
  • Phillips Petroleum Co. v. U.S. E.P.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • October 10, 1986
    ...Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 691, 51 S.Ct. 598, 75 L.Ed. 1353 (1931) (general revenue laws apply to reservation Indians); Navajo Tribe v. NLRB, 288 F.2d 162 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 928, 81 S.Ct. 1649, 6 L.Ed.2d 387 (1961) (NLRB can hold elections on the reservation even if the tri......
  • Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Gov't
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • June 9, 2015
    ...benefits plan because statute did not affect tribe's ability to govern itself in intramural matters); see also Navajo Tribe v. NLRB, 288 F.2d 162, 165 (D.C.Cir.1961) (holding that NLRA applies to employers located on reservation lands); cf. EEOC v. Fond du Lac Heavy Equip. & Constr. Co., 98......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 12 NATIVE AMERICAN JURISDICTION AND PERMITTING
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Oil and Natural Gas Pipelines- Wellhead to End User (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...Crow Tribe, which set a fee of 1% on all contracts entered into on the reservation. [223] Navajo Tribe v. National Labor Relations Board, 288 F.2d 162 (D.C.Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 928 (1961). [224] Brendale v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408 (198......
  • CHAPTER 15 LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ISSUES IN INDIAN COUNTRY: A NON-INDIAN BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE 1
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Natural Resources Development in Indian Country (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...tribal corporation); Dille v. Council of Energy Resource Tribes, 801 F.2d 373 (10%gth%g Cir. 1986). [31] .SeeNavajo Tribe v. N.L.R.B., 288 F.2d 162, 164 (D.C.Cir. 1961) ("Congress has enacted a national labor policy, superseding the local policies of the states and the Indian tribes"); see ......
  • TRIBAL EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE AND EMPLOYEE PROTECTION LAWS
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Natural Resources Development on Indian Lands (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...1950s, the Navajo Nation (then Navajo Tribe) had a statute which "prevent[ed] union activity on its Reservation..." Navajo Tribe v. NLRB, 288 F.2d 162, 164 (D.C. Cir. 1961). The United Steelworkers petitioned the NLRB for an election to determine union recognition at a uranium concentrate m......
1 provisions
  • 29 C.F.R. § 1975.4 Coverage
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2023 Edition Title 29. Labor Subtitle B. Regulations Relating to Labor Chapter XVII. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor Part 1975. Coverage of Employers Under the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
    • January 1, 2023
    ...expressly provided for special treatment. "FPC v. Tuscarora Indian Nation," 362 U.S. 99, 115 - 118(1960); "Navajo Tribe v. N.L.R.B.," 288 F.2d 162, 164-165 (D.C. Cir. 1961), cert. 366 U.S. 928(1961). Therefore, provided they otherwise come within the definition of the term "employer" as int......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT