DFL Files Complaints of False Advertising About Employee Free Choice Act
"DFL Party News"07/23/2008
Party alleges that Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and Minnesotans for Employee Freedom violated Minnesota election law by making false statements
St. Paul (July 23, 2008) — The Minnesota DFL Party today filed formal complaints with the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings against the groups Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and Minnesotans for Employee Freedom. The Party alleges that the television and print advertisements that the groups have run — and, in the case of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, continue to run — on behalf of Senator Norm Coleman violate the Minnesota election law, which prohibits “false political and campaign material” and provides for criminal and civil penalties.
The complaints and related exhibits accompany this release.
State DFL Chair Brian Melendez released this statement:
“Two front groups have been spreading false statements about the Employee Free Choice Act — lies that Senator Norm Coleman has gladly repeated on many occasions, even after labor leaders met with him and explained that the statements were untruthful and that the Act in fact guarantees a secret ballot. Senator Coleman desperately wants to divert attention from his record and from his intimate ties with the corporate special interests that fund his campaign, so he has resorted to telling lies about his opponent, Al Franken.
“But in Minnesota, we don’t tolerate intentionally false statements in paid political advertising; in fact, such statements are a crime, and rightly so. We are therefore holding legally accountable the two groups that have knowingly and intentionally spread these false statements in Minnesota. A judge will hold those groups accountable. And Minnesota voters will hold Norm Coleman accountable.”
Minnesota election law on “false political and campaign material.” Minnesota Statutes 211B.06 reads in part, “A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who intentionally participates in 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.” [Minnesota Statues 211B.06, Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statues, accessed 7/23/08]
WCCO: Coalition for a Democratic Workplace ad misrepresents legislation that would make it easier for workers to join a union; bill would not eliminate secret ballot. In July 2008, a WCCO-TV “Reality Check” Of the CDW ad found that “The ad creates a distorted stereotype of the Mafia, and of labor unions as tools of organized crime. And it misrepresents legislation that would make it easier for workers to organize unions…Since 1948 , employers have had the right to demand a secret ballot when workers want to organize a union. It's an election that's overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. The bill in Congress adds another option to the secret ballot, allowing workers to sign-up publicly to start a union. "Al Franken? Well, he sees it differently," said the ad announcer. "Franken says eliminate the secret ballot for workers." "My pal Al," said Johnny Sack. That's FALSE. The bill that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Al Franken supports does not eliminate the secret ballot election. Workers still have the right to hold one but labor unions say the new option gives employers less control.” [WCCO TV, “Reality Check,” 7/9/08; (emphasis added)]
Star Tribune: “In fact, the bill wouldn’t eliminate the secret-ballot election as an option.” In July 2008, the Star Tribune reported, “The ad charges that the Free Choice Act would subject workers to coercion by forcing them to declare publicly their support or nonsupport for a union, rather than vote secretly as is usually done now. That's undemocratic, the ads claim. In fact, the bill wouldn't eliminate the secret-ballot election as an option. It would give workers seeking to organize the chance to choose between such an election, should 30 percent of all workers request it, or to pursue the so-called check-card process, which certifies the union as soon as 51 percent sign up.” [Star Tribune, 7/14/08; (emphasis added)]
AFL-CIO: “Employee Free Choice: Minnesota’s Coleman Doesn’t Get It.” In May 2007, AFL-CIO wrote, “No matter how hard opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act try or how many times they read the legislation (H.R. 800 and S. 1041), they will never find anywhere in the bill anything that bans workers from voting on whether or not they want to join a union. But that hasn’t stopped anti-worker groups from ginning up a propaganda machine that spreads distortions and lies about what the bill does. Diane O’Brien, Minnesota AFL-CIO communications director, sends us the latest example…Minnesota AFL-CIO Mobilizing and Organizing Director Candace Lund said that Coleman’s stance is based on a “deliberate misunderstanding of the bill.” She explains that the law would allow workers to choose a secret-ballot election or a majority sign-up process when deciding on a union. Business groups—and Sen. Coleman—claim the bill would ban the elections. Not true.” [AFL-CIO Now Blog, 5/15/07, emphasis added]
Minnesota labor leaders: EFCA would not repeal or restrict secret-ballot election. In response to Coleman's Pioneer Press op-ed, Brad Slawson, Jr., chair of Change to Win Minnesota and Ray Waldron, president of Minnesota AFL-CIO wrote, "Nowhere in the bill does it repeal or restrict the provision of the National Labor Relations Act that workers now use to petition for a secret-ballot election — Section 9(c)(1)(A). Workers could continue to file an 'RC petition' to request a secret-ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board, just as they do now." [Pioneer Press, 6/27/07]
Minnesota labor leaders: Coleman knew eliminating secret-ballot elections was not included in EFCA. Slawson and Waldron also wrote, "[Coleman] outlined the reasons for his vote in Tuesday's Pioneer Press, saying that he opposes the act in order to 'protect workers' right to secret ballot elections.' Whoops. Those rights are safe under the Employee Free Choice Act. In fact, in April a group of union members met with a staffer in the senator's St. Paul office to explain that…The senator knew — or at the very least had the opportunity to know — that the Employee Free Choice Act would not limit secret ballot union elections long before he voted against the pro-worker bill Tuesday." [Pioneer Press, 6/27/07]
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Secret ballots “would still be an option” under the Employee Free Choice Act. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the bill “would allow workers to form a union at their job if more than half sign a card authorizing the union, a process known as card check. They would no longer have to hold a secret-ballot election, though that would still be an option. Currently, only the employer has the right to waive the election and accept a union based on card-check. The act also stiffens penalties for employers who improperly intimidate, harass or fire workers trying to form a union.” [St. Louis Post Dispatch, 3/4/07]
Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act provides for how the NLRB would implement a secret ballot. From the text of the National Labor Relations Act:
(c) Hearings on questions affecting commerce; rules and regulations
(1) Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in accordance with
such regulations as may be prescribed by the Board –
(A) by an employee or group of employees or any individual or
labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a
substantial number of employees (i) wish to be represented for
collective bargaining and that their employer declines to
recognize their representative as the representative defined in
subsection (a) of this section, or (ii) assert that the
individual or labor organization, which has been certified or is
being currently recognized by their employer as the bargaining
representative, is no longer a representative as defined in
subsection (a) of this section; or
(B) by an employer, alleging that one or more individuals or
labor organizations have presented to him a claim to be
recognized as the representative defined in subsection (a) of
this section;
the Board shall investigate such petition and if it has reasonable
cause to believe that a question of representation affecting
commerce exists shall provide for an appropriate hearing upon due
notice. Such hearing may be conducted by an officer or employee of
the regional office, who shall not make any recommendations with
respect thereto. If the Board finds upon the record of such hearing
that such a question of representation exists, it shall direct an
election by secret ballot and shall certify the results thereof.
(2) In determining whether or not a question of representation
affecting commerce exists, the same regulations and rules of
decision shall apply irrespective of the identity of the persons
filing the petition or the kind of relief sought and in no case
shall the Board deny a labor organization a place on the ballot by
reason of an order with respect to such labor organization or its
predecessor not issued in conformity with section 160(c) of this
title.
(3) No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit or any
subdivision within which in the preceding twelve-month period, a
valid election shall have been held. Employees engaged in an
economic strike who are not entitled to reinstatement shall be
eligible to vote under such regulations as the Board shall find are
consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter in
any election conducted within twelve months after the commencement
of the strike. In any election where none of the choices on the
ballot receives a majority, a run-off shall be conducted, the
ballot providing for a selection between the two choices receiving
the largest and second largest number of valid votes cast in the
election.
[29 U.S.C. 159] http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t29t32+101+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2829%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28159%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
Under the Employee Free Choice Act, the law would be amended to provide that, if a majority of workers sign a petition and that petition is deemed valid by the NLRB, they would be allowed to form a union without a secret ballot. From the text of the bill:
(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).
House Committee on Education and the Workforce:
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board’s “secret ballot” election process.
FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice – whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up – a majority choice of the employees, not the employer. http://edlabor.house.gov/micro/efca_myth.shtml
Senate Democratic Policy Committee:
MYTH: EFCA will prevent the use of secret-ballot elections.
REALITY: EFCA does not strip workers of their right to choose a secret-ballot election to decide whether to select -- or not to select -- a union representative. EFCA simply gives workers the additional option of selecting a union representative by majority sign-up.
Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), there are two ways for workers to choose a union:
1) By secret-ballot: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will conduct a secret-ballot election to select a bargaining representative if at least 30 percent of workers show an interest in having an election. Typically, this is done by signed petitions or cards. If a majority of workers voting select a particular union, the NLRB will certify that union as the employees’ bargaining representative.
2) By voluntary card-check recognition: An employer can voluntarily decide to recognize a union representative if a majority of employees have signed cards authorizing the union to be their bargaining representative. The employer, however, can choose to reject that showing of majority support, and force the employees to undergo an election campaign that provides the employer an opportunity to run an anti-union campaign for 6 to 8 weeks.
EFCA would place the choice of using an election or majority sign-up process in the hands of the workers, rather than their employers. EFCA would make it mandatory for the NLRB to certify a union based on a valid majority sign-up. It would also require the NLRB to issue rules for majority sign-up and procedures for assuring the validity of the signed authorization cards. The majority sign-up, or “card-check,” option would streamline the union selection process for workplaces that have a majority of workers who want a union.
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-1-106