Navajo Tribe v. NLRB
Decision Date | 02 March 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 15735.,15735. |
Citation | 288 F.2d 162 |
Parties | NAVAJO TRIBE, a Treaty Tribe of Indians et al., Appellants v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al., Appellees. |
Court | U.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.
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:
The District Court also stated the following conclusions of law:
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-
National Labor Relations Bd. & Local Union No. 1385 v. Pueblo of San Juan, Nos. 99-2011
...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
...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.
...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
...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......
-
CHAPTER 12 NATIVE AMERICAN JURISDICTION AND PERMITTING
...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
...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
...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......
-
29 C.F.R. § 1975.4 Coverage
...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......