Secretary of Labor v. Barber & Sons Aggregate (Commission decision, February 27, 2013)

Plain-English summary

Barber's office manager believed she had sent a proposed penalty assessment to counsel, but counsel never received it. Meanwhile, Barber and MSHA negotiated a global settlement intended to cover all outstanding violations, yet the missed assessment was omitted. After Treasury collection contact exposed the problem, counsel tried to add the case to the settlement, and the Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission reopened the assessment in the interests of justice and remanded for normal penalty proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Governing authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28
• Outcome: The final penalty assessment was reopened and remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
• Key point: Reopening was warranted where an internal transmission mistake excluded an assessment that both sides intended to address in a global settlement.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-1710

February 27, 2013

SECRETARY OF LABOR, 

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) 

v.

BARBER & SONS AGGREGATE 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. CENT 2012-679-M

A.C. No. 23-01889-266406

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Young 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 June 19, 2012, the Commission received from Barber & Sons Aggregate (“Barber”) a motion seeking 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).

Barber received Proposed Assessment No. 000266406, which is the subject of this motion, shortly after its issuance on September 8, 2011. Barber asserts that its office manager believed she had forwarded the proposed assessment to counsel, but counsel never received it. During this period, Barber’s counsel was negotiating a global settlement agreement with MSHA of all outstanding violations against Barber. The global settlement was concluded in February 2012. It was the intention of Barber and MSHA that all violations issued by MSHA through the date of the global settlement would be included in it.

Barber’s office manager notified counsel of the delinquency after she was contacted by a Treasury Department collection agency on April 9, 2012. During April and June 2012 counsel attempted to contact a Treasury Department representative and an attorney for the Secretary of Labor to include this case in the global settlement. The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen.

Having reviewed Barber’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of justice, we hereby reopen this matter and remand it to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700. Accordingly, consistent with Rule 28, the Secretary shall file a petition for assessment of penalty within 45 days of the date of this order. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

/s/Michael G. Young

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

/s/ Patrick K. Nakamura

Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

Distribution:

David B.B. Helfrey, Esq.

Helfrey, Neiers & Jones, P.C.

120 S. Central Ave., Suite 1500

St. Louis, MO 63105

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Melanie Garris

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

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Suite 520N

Washington, D.C. 20004-1710