WASHINGTON, July 29 /EMWNews/ -- Today the Administrative Law Judge

of the Office of Administrative Hearings for the state of Minnesota

dismissed the complaint filed by the DFL Party against the Coalition for a

Democratic Workplace (CDW) and other parties. The complaint asserted it was

false to say that Al Franken supported a federal bill that would permit

labor unions to force themselves on workers without a secret ballot. The

judge dismissed the complaint without even waiting for an answer, ruling

that the DFL complaint failed to allege any specific reason why the

statements at issue are factually false. (To view the ad, please visit

http://www.MyPrivateBallot.com).



    "We are pleased that the judge saw through the DFL's desperate

political stunt aimed at preventing us from educating Minnesotans about the

threat to private ballots in the workplace," said Brian Worth, vice

president of the Independent Electrical Contractors of America and member

of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. "Our education campaign is

working and their failed attempt to not let the facts get in the way of a

good story won't miraculously change the realities of the mis-named

Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)."



    The DFL has consistently rejected the facts about how EFCA will

effectively end the right of workers to cast their vote in private when

deciding whether to join a union.



    Under EFCA, the NLRB must recognize the union without an election if a

majority of workers sign an authorization card identifying who they are.

Once the 50% threshold has been crossed, the statute is unequivocal in its

command: "the [NLRB] shall not direct an election but shall certify the

individual or organization as the labor representative." (Emphasis added.)



    According to a recent poll conducted by the Coalition for a Democratic

Workplace (CDW), 72% of Minnesota voters prefer secret ballot elections

over a card check process when deciding whether or not to join a union. The

same poll found that 65% of Minnesota voters were opposed to the Employee

Free Choice Act.



    A copy of the Order of Dismissal is attached.

    About the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace



    The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace is made up of more than 500

associations and organizations from every state across the nation that have

joined together to protect a worker's right to a private ballot when

deciding whether to join a union. For more information and a listing of our

membership, please visit http://www.MyPrivateBallot.com.










                                                            11-0320-19807-CV

                              STATE OF MINNESOTA

                      OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS



    Brian Melendez,

                                 Complainant,

    vs.

                                                   ORDER OF DISMISSAL

    Rhonda Bentz, Noah Rouen, Vincent

    Curatola, Coalition for a Democratic

    Workplace,

                                 Respondents.

    On July 24, 2008, Brian Melendez filed a Complaint with the Office of

Administrative Hearings alleging the Respondents violated Minn. Stat. Sec.

211B.06 by preparing and disseminating false campaign material. The Chief

Administrative Law Judge assigned this matter to the undersigned

Administrative Law Judge on July 24, 2008. A copy of the complaint and

attachments were sent by U.S. mail to the Respondents on July 24, 2008.



    After reviewing the Complaint and attached documents, the undersigned

Administrative Law Judge has determined that the complaint does not set

forth a prima facie violation of Sec. 211B.06.



    Based upon the Complaint and the supporting filings and for the reasons

set out in the attached Memorandum,



    IT IS ORDERED:



    That the Complaint filed by Brian Melendez against Rhonda Bentz, Noah

Rouen, Vincent Curatola, and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace for

violation of Minn. Stat. Sec. 211B.06 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The

Complainant may revise and file a subsequent complaint regarding alleged

violations of Minn. Stat. Sec. 211B.06 in connection with the television

advertisement at issue without paying an additional filing fee.






    Dated: July 29, 2008

                                                    s/Barbara L. Neilson

                                                    BARBARA L. NEILSON

                                                    Administrative Law Judge



                                  MEMORANDUM

    The Complaint concerns the Minnesota U.S. Senate race. The Complaint

alleges that a television ad produced and distributed by "Respondent"

contained false campaign material with respect to candidate Al Franken.

Specifically, the ad states "Franken says eliminate the secret ballot for

workers." The Complaint maintains that Mr. Franken "has not made any such

statement" and the statement attributed to him is "contrary to the facts."

The ad also states that Al Franken wants "to end worker privacy." The

Complaint maintains that this statement is also false.






    Minn. Stat. Sec. 211B.06, subd. 1, prohibits intentional participation:



    ...  [i]n the preparation, dissemination, or broadcast of paid political

    advertising or campaign material with respect to the personal or political

    character or acts of a candidate, or with respect to the effect of a

    ballot question, that is designed or tends to elect, injure, promote, or

    defeat a candidate for nomination or election to a public office or to

    promote or defeat a ballot question, that is false, and that the person

    knows is false or communicates to others with reckless disregard of

    whether it is false.

    In order to be found to have violated this section, a person must

intentionally participate in the preparation, dissemination or broadcast of

false campaign material that the person knows is false or communicates with

reckless disregard of whether it is false.



    The term "reckless disregard" was added to the statute in 1998 to

expressly incorporate the "actual malice" standard from New York Times v.

Sullivan.(1) Based on this standard, the Complainant has the burden at the

hearing to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondents

prepared or disseminated the advertisement knowing that it was false or did

so with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. The test is

subjective; the Complainant must come forward with sufficient evidence to

prove the Respondents "in fact entertained serious doubts" as to the truth

of the ad or acted "with a high degree of awareness" of its probable

falsity.(2)



    For purposes of a prima facie determination, the Complainant must

detail the factual basis to support a claim that the violation of law has

occurred.(3) Here, the Complainant has not alleged with any specificity why

the statements at issue are factually false. The Complaint merely asserts

that the statements are false and "contrary to the facts," without

providing any further information.



    (1) New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964).



    (2) St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968); Garrison v.

Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964). See also Riley v. Jankowski, 713 N.W. 2d

379 (Minn. App.) review denied (Minn. 2006).



    (3) Minn. Stat. Sec. 211B.32, subd. 3.



    The Complaint also does not identify the named individual Respondents,

nor does it allege any facts to support an allegation that they

participated in the preparation or broadcast of the material knowing it was

false or with reckless disregard of its falsity. A review of the press

release issued by the Coalition for Democratic Workplace and attached as an

exhibit to the Complaint reveals that Rhonda Bentz and Noah Rouen are

contact persons for the group. Vincent Curatola is not identified in the

Complaint or its attachments, but he is the actor who stars in the ad.



    A complaint claiming a violation of Minn. Stat. Sec. 211B.06 must

detail the factual basis of the claimed violation. At a minimum, the

Complaint must allege sufficient facts or provide supporting documentation

from which knowledge or reckless disregard of the falsity of the statement

on the part of the persons who prepared or disseminated the material may be

implied. The Complaint in this matter fails to meet that requirement. The

Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Complaint does not allege

sufficient facts to support a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. Sec.

211B.06. For these reasons, the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice to

re-filing. The Complainant may revise and file a subsequent complaint

without payment of an additional filing fee.



    B.L.N.