Secretary of Labor v. Linwood Mining and Minerals Corporation (Commission decision, November 30, 2016)

Plain-English summary

MSHA proposed civil penalties against Linwood Mining and Minerals in September 2014. Linwood never filed an answer, so the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued a show cause order in June 2015 that became a default order the next month. Linwood asked the Commission to reopen, explaining that the safety director responsible for contesting the penalties was seriously ill through 2015 and out of the office for long stretches, and that he had assured the company his assignments were complete when in fact this case had been overlooked. The company said it would have its general counsel review all regulatory matters going forward. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. Applying the Rule 60(b) standard it uses for excusable neglect, and noting that default is a harsh remedy, the Commission reopened the proceeding, vacated the default order, and sent the case back to the Chief Judge.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.69(b)
• Outcome: The default order was vacated and the penalty proceeding was reopened and remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
• Key point: An employee's extended illness, combined with mistaken assurances that the filing had been handled, can amount to excusable neglect justifying relief from a default.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
DC 20004-1710

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH   

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA),       

v.

LINWOOD
MINING AND MINERALS

CORPORATION

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. CENT 2014-599

A.C.
No. 13-00097-359206

BEFORE:  Jordan,
Chairman; Young, Cohen, and Althen, 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. (2012) (“Mine Act”). On October 1, 2015, the Commission received from Linwood Mining and Minerals Corporation (“Linwood”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment proceeding and relieve it from the Default Order entered against it.

On
June 11, 2015, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued an Order to Show Cause in response to Linwood’s perceived failure to answer the Secretary of Labor’s September 17, 2014 Petition for Assessment of Civil Penalty. By its terms, the Order to Show Cause was deemed a Default Order on July 13, 2015, when it appeared that the operator had not filed an answer within 30 days.

Linwood asserts that the company’s
safety director, tasked with contesting the proposed penalties, was extremely ill during 2015 and, as a result, was out of the office for extended periods of time. Despite assurances that the safety director had completed all of his assignments, Linwood claims that it discovered that this case was inadvertently ignored. Further, Linwood asserts that it will attempt to prevent future mistakes by instituting a review of all regulatory issues by the company’s general counsel. The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen.

The
Judge’s jurisdiction in this matter terminated when the default occurred. 29 C.F.R.  § 2700.69(b). Under the Mine Act and the Commission’s procedural rules, relief from a Judge’s decision may be sought by filing a petition for discretionary review within 30 days of its issuance. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2)(A)(i); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.70(a). If the Commission does not direct review within 40 days of a decision’s issuance, it becomes a final decision of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). Consequently, the Judge’s order here has become a final decision of the Commission.

In
evaluating requests to reopen final orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which the Commission may relieve a party from a final order of the Commission on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or other reason justifying relief. 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”); Jim Walter Res., Inc. , 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993). 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 will be permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc. , 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

Having reviewed Linwood’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interest of justice, we hereby reopen the proceeding and vacate the Default Order. Accordingly, this case is remanded 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.

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

/s/ Michael G. Young

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

/s/ Robert F. Cohen, Jr.

Robert F. Cohen Jr., Commissioner

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner

Distribution:

James
A. Mezvinsky, Esq.

General
Counsel

5401
Victoria Ave. Suite 100

Davenport,
IA 52807-2991

Dallas
Allen

Director
of Safety and Training

401
East Front St.

Davenport,
IA 52804

W.
Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S.
Department of Labor

201
12th St. South, Suite 500

Arlington,
VA 22202-5450

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal
Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

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

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

Melanie
Garris

Office
of Civil Penalty Compliance

Mine
Safety and Health Administration

U.S.
Department of Labor

201
12th St. South, Suite 500

Arlington,
VA 22202-5450