Foxwoods fighting union vote

A brewing legal battle to unionize dealers at Foxwoods Resort Casino has captured the attention of Indian tribes nationwide because of its precedent-setting potential on the issue of sovereignty on tribal lands.
The Mashantucket Pequot tribe, which owns Foxwoods Casino, is fighting a vote taken last November in which 60 percent of the casino’s dealers favored joining the United Auto Workers union. The tribe has argued that federal and state labor laws don’t apply to the casino – that any petition for unionization should be done under tribal labor laws.
But tribal officials have also appealed the vote to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), saying that some dealers were intimidated and others whose native language is not English did not understand the English-only ballot.
The NLRB completed hearings on the Foxwoods appeal several weeks ago and is expected to make a ruling later this month. The board could either throw out the vote or certify the results – placing the 2,000 dealers in a collective bargaining unit under the UAW.
The tribe said last month that it is ready to take matters to court.
“The tribal council is committed to the defense of tribal sovereignty,” said Bruce MacDonald, a Mashantucket Pequot spokesman. “It takes the issue very seriously.”
For their part, dealers who led the organizing effort last year are confident that the NLRB will certify the vote. But if it doesn’t? “I guess it’s a matter or reorganizing and trying to get another vote done,” said John Anderson, of Smithfield, a black jack and craps dealer at Foxwoods and a member of the 200-member organizing committee.
The outcome of the labor battle at one of the world’s largest casinos will have an impact on the several hundred other tribe-owned casinos in the United States – including the nation’s second-largest casino, Mohegan Sun, located a few miles away.
Few of the tribal casinos have been unionized because for decades the government allowed Indian tribes to operate largely outside federal labor laws.
That changed last year, when a federal appeals court ruled that a casino owned by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in California was subject to the National Labor Relations Act.
At the time, legal experts predicted that the ruling would open the floodgates for organizing efforts.
Sure enough, in November, Foxwoods table-game dealers voted 1,289 to 852 in the first union election overseen by the NLRB at a tribal casino.
When contacted last month, a UAW official decline to say whether the union would attempt an organizing drive at Mohegan Sun.
“I do expect we’ll see it all over the place,” said lawyer Brian Pierson, head of the Indian law group at Godfrey & Kahn, in Milwaukee, Wis., referring to unionization attempts. “From the point of view from the union, why not?”
Pierson, who represents several tribes nationwide, said the Mashantucket Pequots are going to have difficulty winning in court because of last year’s San Manuel ruling.
“What they’re doing is hoping that the First Circuit Court of Appeal [where an appeals case may be heard] will view the matter differently,” he said. “I’m not saying it can’t be done. But it’s a high hill to climb and many tribes are preparing for the eventuality that they could be subject to these types of organization efforts.”
That’s what Pierson is advising his clients. Some tribes are preparing by informing employees that they don’t have to vote in favor of a union. Some are investigating enacting a tribal right-to-work law, which prohibits making union membership or dues a condition of employment.
Pierson said the Mashantucket Pequot tribe has one thing in its favor: the tribal council enacted labor laws last year, before the UAW vote. “To have a tribal, legal framework in place is beneficial because it’s easier to make the case that outside law is an infringement on the sovereignty if there’s not a vacuum of tribal law,” he said.
John Anderson, the dealer who helped organize the union, said he doesn’t be believe that the tribe should have sovereignty in this case, in part because most of the workers as well as the visitors are not tribal members. “Nobody should have carte blanche,” he said.
Anderson said he started working at the casino last May and joined the unionization movement three weeks later. The reasons: seeking improved benefits, pay and a healthy work environment. “The regular gamut of issues,” he said.
For instance, he said, some dealers are working to get smoking prohibited in the casino. “You can’t get away from it,” said Anderson, a retired Cranston firefighter. “I’ve had three upper respiratory infections I feel can be directly attributed to the air in the casino….Managements response to employees who get sick in the casinos – it’s really pretty poor.”
Then why work there? Anderson said he enjoys the casino atmosphere. “And it’s hard to find a job that you can make $20 an hour,” he said.
In response to the Foxwoods’ claims that many dealers of Chinese descent – there are about 700 of them – did not understand the ballot because it was written only in English, Anderson said dealers must understand some English to get through employment training.
“People understood what the issue was, there’s not doubt in my mind,” Anderson said.
And the intimidation? “A lot of it was unfounded, as far as I could tell,” he said.
Nevertheless, MacDonald, the tribe spokesman, said union organizers have gone about seeking approval the wrong way. “Foxwoods management maintains there’s no need for a union, but the tribal council has said if they feel there is a need, go through the tribal law.”
MacDonald says the tribe has a strong legal case, should the matter end up in court.
“We’ve got one federal court in one location turning over decades of precedent,” he said. “And the tribe’s lawyers feel there’s distinctive differences between our case and San Manuel.” &#8226