Civic Academy
Office of Navajo Labor Relations (ONLR) 101
≈ 12 min read · or listen, or skim the bold lines
C · Secondary explanation The process and deadlines below are drawn from published commentary by practicing attorneys. The statutory text of 15 N.N.C. § 601 et seq. has not been read directly, and the published Code is current only through 2009. How we verify →
Labor rights, Navajo Preference, just cause, retaliation, and prevention vs litigation.
FINDING
Which branch ONLR sits in — and why it decides who you ask
The Office of Navajo Labor Relations is an executive-branch office. It sits inside the Navajo Nation Division of Human Resources, alongside the Department of Personnel Management, Workforce Development, and Navajo OSHA. It has its own public site at onlr.navajo-nsn.gov, where the charge forms and the NPEA itself are posted.
That placement is not trivia. It means the person who can direct ONLR to publish how many charges it receives, and how they end, is the President — not the Council, and not the courts. A candidate for President who says worker protection matters can be asked a question with a single correct answer: will you direct your own Division of Human Resources to publish ONLR’s intake numbers?
The Navajo Nation Labor Commission is a different body again — the tribunal that decides whether the NPEA was violated, whose decisions may be appealed to the Navajo Nation Supreme Court, and whose decisions nobody publishes. Law, office, tribunal: three things, three different answers to “who fixes this.”
So keep the three separate as you read:
FINDING
Three bodies, three different places in the government
People often speak of “labor” as one thing. It is three, and they sit in three different parts of the Nation:
The NPEA is a law, enacted by the Council. The Office of Navajo Labor Relations is an executive office inside the Division of Human Resources; it receives charges and investigates them. The Navajo Nation Labor Commission is neither — it is a quasi-judicial body, part of the Navajo Nation Government, that holds evidentiary hearings and decides whether the NPEA was violated. Its decisions may be appealed to the Navajo Nation Supreme Court and enforced in the district courts, and its budget is approved through the Council’s Law and Order Committee — the same committee that oversees the courts, the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Department of Justice, and the Ethics and Rules Office.
None of this is peacemaking, which is a community-based system supported by the Judicial Branch and a different tradition entirely. And none of it is the Office of Hearings and Appeals, which hears Navajo Nation personnel grievances by employees of the Nation itself.
So “who fixes this” has three answers. Amend the law → the Council. Fund and direct the office → the President. Fund the tribunal, and require it to publish → the Law and Order Committee, and Budget and Finance. A candidate who says “I’ll fix labor” without naming one of the three has not answered.
What happens when the tribunal itself stops moving is not hypothetical:
FINDING
The Commission once stopped hearing cases — and the Supreme Court had to order it to resume
In Bahe v. Navajo Nation Labor Commission (2018), the Navajo Nation Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of mandamus and issued a permanent writ compelling the Commission to hear a complaint. The Court’s decision records that the complaint had been filed in October 2017, a hearing was noticed and then rescheduled, and the Commission failed to hold it — and that as of that October the Commission had not convened to hear any formal complaint before it.
The Court did not treat this as a scheduling problem. It described the Commission as holding a fiduciary duty to the Navajo people, acting as naat’áanii, with an obligation to seek resolution especially where the dispute concerns a person’s daily livelihood.
This is what a seam looks like when someone finally photographs it. The law existed. The office existed. The tribunal existed — and was not sitting. It took an individual, a lawyer, and the Nation’s highest court to make the machinery move for one person. Nobody publishes how many other people were waiting. That is one of the three numbers nobody prints.
And the number nobody prints is not missing — it is filed and unread:
FINDING
The data already exists — employers hand it over every quarter
Under the NPEA, employers on the Navajo Nation must file a written Navajo affirmative action plan and quarterly reports with ONLR. So the Nation already collects, four times a year, from every covered employer, the raw material of an answer to “is Navajo preference actually happening?”
This project could not locate any published summary of those reports — no annual figure, no compliance rate, nothing a voter or a job-seeker could read. The reports are filed. The question is what becomes of them. That is not a request for a new law; it is a request for a report on reports the Nation is already receiving. We have written it down.
Purpose
ONLR exists to provide a labor-rights and Navajo Preference framework so disputes can be addressed fairly and locally.
The process is designed for early administrative resolution — addressing disputes through ONLR before they reach litigation.
Core issues
Navajo Preference.
Just cause.
Retaliation.
Right-to-sue.
Appeals.
Supervisor training.
Attorney use and cost.
Questions
Are employment disputes being resolved quickly and fairly? Are we spending more on litigation than prevention? What would reduce disputes before attorneys become involved?A question worth carrying
When an employee’s case is still being decided, should the process be able to displace them from employer-provided housing before any ruling? A fair system asks who benefits when the fight itself is made harder to sustain.
Goes with: NPEA / Employee Rights & Workplace Culture 101
Continue
All Civic Academy lessons · Task Guides · My Civic Journey
Your voice: today’s Corner question · all surveys, by subject · the data so far.
How the process actually runs
Two agencies, two steps. The Office of Navajo Labor Relations (ONLR) processes charges filed by employees. The Navajo Nation Labor Commission hears disputes ONLR did not resolve; its procedure resembles a court.
- One year from the event — or the last event in a series — to file a charge with ONLR.
- The charge must raise every issue. A claim not raised at the ONLR stage within that year may not be asserted at all afterward. It may be amended — only inside the year.
- ONLR has six months to investigate, and must notify the employer in writing.
- 360 days to file with the Labor Commission — counted from the day the ONLR charge was filed. Not from a right-to-sue letter. Not from when ONLR finishes.
- You do not need a right-to-sue letter. All four ONLR outcomes — including ONLR doing nothing — leave the right to file.
- The Labor Commission may extend the 360 days for unusual circumstances that delayed the filing.
An employee is not required to hire an attorney. A business-entity employer must. The Nation also licenses tribal court advocates — trained representatives who are not attorneys and typically cost far less.
What the NPEA does — and does not — protect
It does: prohibit adverse action without just cause, and prohibit prejudice, intimidation, and harassment. That rule eliminates at-will employment — a stronger protection than most states offer.
It does not: contain a whistleblower or anti-retaliation provision. The Navajo Nation has no general whistleblower act. Two narrower protections exist: 2 N.N.C. § 3767 (parties and witnesses to an ethics complaint) and 15 N.N.C. § 610(N) (anyone who files a charge or testifies under the NPEA). Neither reaches a report made to a regulator, to law enforcement, or to the public. Retaliation for reporting wrongdoing is not, by its terms, what this statute addresses — though retaliation is unlikely to be just cause.
The Labor Commission does not publish its decisions. No employee and no employer can look up how “just cause” has actually been applied.
The NPEA, read from the Code
A · read in the Navajo Nation Code Annotated, 15 N.N.C. §§ 601–612
§ 604(B)(8) — just cause
“All employers shall not penalize, discipline, discharge nor take any adverse action against any Navajo employee without just cause. A written notification to the employee citing such cause for any of the above actions is required in all cases.”
Two things almost nobody knows. First: written notice citing the cause is required in every case. Second: the section carries exemptions — it “shall not apply to Division Directors, or to other employees and officials of the Navajo Nation who serve pursuant to a special appointment.”
§ 610(N) — non-retaliation
“It shall be unlawful for any employer… to, directly or indirectly, take or attempt to induce another person to take, any action adversely affecting the terms and conditions of any person’s employment… because such person has opposed an employment practice subject to this Act or has made a charge, testified, or assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under the Act.”
The two protections do not cover the same people
§ 603(D): “‘Navajo’ means any enrolled member of the Navajo Nation.”
On the face of the statute, the just-cause protection names enrolled members. The anti-retaliation protection names any person.
Correction — July 2026
Earlier versions of these pages said the NPEA “contains no anti-retaliation provision.” That was wrong. § 610(N) is headed Non-retaliation and has been in the Code for years.
We also said the Navajo Nation has “no whistleblower protection act.” Misleading. 2 N.N.C. § 3767 prohibits retaliation against parties and witnesses to an ethics complaint, and has since 1988.
Both errors were found by reading the statute. Both had been sitting in a page that told people what protects them at work. Corrections welcome — and they matter.
Why almost nobody uses § 3767
B · From the record A recorded episode of Politics on the Navajo Nation. Quotation from a machine transcript, not yet checked against the recording.
After Cal Nez interviewed the Office of Ethics & Rules, three community members from Teesto asked to come on the programme and answer.
Mona Seamon, Laura Clelland, and Lula Stago — the last a retired school principal — described their own experience of the ethics complaint process.
Asked why people stop coming to chapter meetings, one of them answered:
“You get a complaint that the community people don’t come to meetings. It’s because for many, many years they have gone to the chapter to ask for what they need and they were labeled as troublemakers. So it’s better that they just stay away and try to manage their life.”
That sentence names no one and accuses no one. It describes a chill.
It also explains a great deal. Why chapter meetings are empty. Why almost nobody testifies at the budget hearings held at all five agencies. Why the Auditor General’s line never gets funded.
And why a retaliation provision that has existed since 1988 is almost never invoked.
Council candidate Jamie Henio, an attorney, told the same programme that people are “scared to say anything because they’re being told, don’t do that, you’re gonna lose your job.” Three women from Teesto described what that fear looks like from inside it.
They came in response
They did not appear at random. They asked to be heard after Cal Nez interviewed the Office of Ethics & Rules itself — its Interim Director and staff — and after his interview with the office’s former Director.
That is what a right of reply looks like when it runs the other way. An office gave its account. Community members answered on the same programme.
The whole story, in one article: The tribunal that stopped sitting →