Quikrete Companies, Inc. (Commission decision, July 29, 2010)

Plain-English summary

Quikrete Companies failed to timely contest penalties for two citations and attributed the failure to absent decision makers and a misunderstanding. The Secretary opposed reopening because that explanation was conclusory. The Commission agreed that Quikrete had not explained its normal contest process or why it failed in this instance. It denied relief without prejudice and allowed the company 30 days to submit a more detailed request, warning that a later filing would be denied with prejudice.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b)
• Outcome: Reopening was denied without prejudice, with 30 days allowed for a detailed renewed request.
• Key point: A general reference to absences and misunderstanding did not establish good cause without specific facts about the company's penalty-contest process.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

July 29, 2010

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

QUIKRETE COMPANIES, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. CENT 2010-448-M

A.C. No. 23-01597-201871

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, Cohen, and Nakamura, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On February 10, 2010, the Commission received from Quikrete Companies, Inc. (“Quikrete”) a request to reopen a penalty assessment that had become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

Under section 105(a) of the Mine Act, an operator who wishes to contest a proposed penalty must notify the Secretary of Labor no later than 30 days after receiving the proposed penalty assessment. If the operator fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

We have held, however, that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessments that have become final Commission orders under section 105(a). Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993) (“JWR”). In evaluating requests to reopen final section 105(a) orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which, for example, a party could be entitled to relief from a final order of the Commission on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) (“the Commission and its Judges shall be guided so far as practicable by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); JWR, 15 FMSHRC at 787. We have also observed that default is a harsh remedy and that, if the defaulting party can make a showing of good cause for a failure to timely respond, the case may be reopened and appropriate proceedings on the merits permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

On November 4, 2009, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000201871 to Quikcrete proposing penalties for two citations that had been issued to the operator on September 21, 2009. According to Quikcrete, it had planned to contest both proposed penalties, but because of the absence of, and misunderstanding between, key decision makers, it failed to do so. The Secretary opposes the request to reopen the ground that Quikrcrete’s explanation for the failure to file a timely contest is conclusory and thus insufficient to establish grounds for reopening the assessment.

Having reviewed Quikcrete’s request to reopen and the Secretary’s response, we conclude that the operator has not provided a sufficiently detailed explanation for its failure to timely contest the proposed penalty assessment. Without further elaboration, the operator’s explanation has not provided the Commission with an adequate basis to reopen. Accordingly, we hereby deny the request for relief without prejudice. See Eastern Assoc. Coal, LLC, 30 FMSHRC 392, 394 (May 2008); James Hamilton Constr., 29 FMSHRC 569, 570 (July 2007). The words “without prejudice” mean that Quikcrete may submit another request to reopen Assessment No. 000201871 so that it can contest the two proposed penalties.

At a minimum, the operator must provide an explanation of how it normally decides to contest proposed penalties and specific information regarding why that process did not work in this instance. Any amended or renewed request by Quikcrete to reopen Assessment No. 000201871 must be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. Any such request filed after that time will be denied with prejudice.

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

Distribution:

Scott Bailey, CSP

Quikrete Companies, Inc.

701 Marshall Rd.

Valley Park, MO 63088

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Myra James, Chief,

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA,

U.S. Dept. of Labor,

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor,

Arlington, VA 22209-3939

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001-2021