Foxwoods

Saginaw Chippewa Union Vote

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Indianz:

 Union vote set for Saginaw Chippewa casino

The National Labor Relations Board will oversee a union election at the casino owned by the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan. The election takes place December 20. Teamsters Local 486 wants to organize about 300 housekeeping employees. This the second NLRB-overseen election at a tribal casino since the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the board’s ability to assert jurisdiction at tribal enterprises. Dealers at the casino owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation of Connecticut agreed to a union this past weekend.

Get the Story:
Union election date set for casino workers (The Mt. Pleasant Morning Sun 11/29)

Preliminary Results of Union Vote at Foxwoods

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From The New London Day:

FOXWOODS DEALERS OK UNION

Casino Vows To Challenge 1,289-852 Vote

Mashantucket — Dealers voted in the United Auto Workers union at Foxwoods Resort Casino Saturday by a vote of 1,289 to 852, but the fight — tense for some, enthralling for others — isn’t over yet.

In a historic election expected to bring in organized labor for the first time at one of the world’s largest Indian-owned casinos, dealers cast a total of 2,177 ballots, but 36 were challenged by the union or the company and thrown out. The overall vote was 60 percent in favor of the UAW. The count overseen by the National Labor Relations Board was completed at about 2 a.m. this morning. A total of 2,640 dealers were initially eligible, said Foxwoods Spokesman Saverio Mancini, but 25 were disqualified before voting and another five ballots were filled out wrong and voided, and some just didn’t show up, he said. Despite the win by the UAW, Foxwoods President John O’Brien said this morning that the company and its owners, the Mashantucket Pequot tribe, would examine all their options, including a legal fight, before letting the UAW in the door.

“We are disappointed with the preliminary tally, however, these results will not be official until all legal issues, including jurisdiction, are resolved,” O’Brien in a statement. “We continue to believe as we have from the very beginning that the labor board lacked jurisdiction and that any election should have been governed by tribal laws. “We have made our position clear to the NLRB and will continue to do so in the future.”

Mashantucket Pequot Appeal to NLRB

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the New London Day: “The Mashantucket Pequot tribe asserted their sovereign right to adhere to tribal and not federal labor law in a 50-page request for review submitted Wednesday to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C.”Expanding arguments originally laid out in a legal brief filed with the regional NLRB in Hartford, attorneys with Kilpatrick Stockton LLP of Atlanta honed in on the particulars of that tribal labor law, adopted this past summer.”

We’ll be looking for the papers filed by MPN, but please let us know if you know where we can get it. Miigwetch.

“

NLRB Foxwoods Decision — October 24, 2007

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

The decision of the regional NLRB director in the Foxwoods Casino case is here.

One interesting passage from this opinion:

“I find particularly unpersuasive the Employer’s claim, unsupported by record evidence, that “a strike against the Tribal Gaming Enterprise would severely disrupt the Tribe’s continuing ability to provide essential services” to its constituent members.  As previously indicated, the Employer has annual gross revenues in excess of $1 billion, and approximately 98% of the Tribe’s revenues are derived from the operation of Foxwoods. Thus, approximately 2 percent of the Tribe’s annual income, at least $20,000,000, is derived from outside sources. The record does not indicate the Tribe’s capital reserves, or the amounts needed to fund any of its essential services. Therefore, even if the Employer were to face a protracted strike, there is no evidence that it would have insufficient revenues and/or capital to provide the Tribe’s 900 members with any essential public service.

But what about tribal casinos that don’t make that kind of money or have larger memberships? Hmmm….