## Facts

- The San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians owned and operated the San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino on its reservation in San Bernardino County, California.
- The casino was a large gaming facility that employed many non-Indians and primarily served non-Indian patrons.
- Two unions sought to organize casino employees: the Communication Workers of America (CWA) and HERE (later Unite Here!).
- The casino allowed CWA to campaign on casino property but denied HERE comparable access.
- HERE filed unfair labor practice charges alleging interference with employees’ organizing rights and discriminatory access.
- The Tribe argued the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) did not apply due to tribal sovereignty and because the casino was a tribal governmental enterprise operating under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
- The NLRB found the NLRA applicable, determined the casino committed unfair labor practices, and ordered the casino to stop discriminating, provide comparable access, and post notices.
- The Tribe and casino petitioned for review, and the NLRB cross-applied for enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether the NLRA applies to a tribal government’s operation of a casino on tribal land.
2. Whether applying the NLRA to the casino’s employment relations impermissibly intrudes on tribal sovereignty absent a clear congressional statement.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that granting one union access while denying a rival union comparable access violated the NLRA.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit denied the petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement.
- The court held the NLRA could be applied to the casino’s employment practices.
- The court concluded application of the NLRA in this setting did not intrude on tribal sovereignty enough to require a narrowing construction exempting the Tribe.
- The court upheld the NLRB’s unfair labor practice determination and remedy requiring nondiscriminatory access and notice posting.

## Legal Principles

- A federal statute of general applicability may apply to tribal entities unless (as relevant under federal Indian law principles) application would significantly impair tribal self-government or Congress clearly indicated otherwise.
- The NLRA’s broad definition of “employer,” together with Congress’s decision to exempt certain governments but not tribes, supported coverage.
- In assessing sovereignty concerns, courts distinguish internal tribal governance from outward-facing commercial operations that employ and serve substantial numbers of nonmembers.
- IGRA and tribal gaming-related regulation do not, without clear congressional direction, displace or repeal the NLRA; federal labor obligations may coexist with tribal regulation absent direct conflict.
- The NLRB may treat discriminatory on-premises access between rival unions as interference with employees’ § 7 rights and a violation of § 8(a) when supported by substantial evidence, and it has remedial discretion to order equal access and notice posting.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the NLRB’s order, holding that the NLRA applies to a tribally owned casino whose workforce and customer base are largely nonmembers, and it affirmed that discriminatory access favoring one union over another constituted an unfair labor practice subject to federal labor remedies.


San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino v. NLRB, 475 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2007)