Secretary of Labor v. Lee Mechanical Contractors

Plain-English summary

Lee Mechanical Contractors timely prepared contests for two proposed penalty assessments but mailed both to MSHA's St. Louis payment center instead of the Civil Penalty Compliance Office in Arlington. The company discovered the first error after receiving a delinquency notice and found the second while reviewing its online citation history. Lee changed its office procedures to prevent the address mistake from recurring. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission consolidated, reopened, and remanded both cases, requiring penalty petitions within 45 days.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: Both final assessments were reopened and remanded for proceedings on the merits.
• Key point: Timely prepared contests misdirected to the agency's payment office may be reopened when the operator promptly corrects the error and improves its procedures.

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.

LEE
MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. CENT 2015-522-M

A.C.
No. 23-00188-379541 HUW

Docket
No. CENT 2015-618-M

A.C.
No. 23-00188-382032 HUW

BEFORE:  Jordan,
Chairman; Nakamura, and Althen, Commissioners[1]

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 July 28, 2015, the Commission received
from Lee Mechanical Contractors (“Lee”) 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). On September 9, 2015, the Commission received a second motion to reopen
from Lee.[2]

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 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”); 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).

Records
of the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”)
indicate that the proposed assessment for Docket No. CENT 2015-522-M was
delivered on April 28, 2015, and became a final order of the Commission on May
28, 2015. Lee asserts that it timely contested the proposed assessment, but
sent the contest paperwork to MSHA’s St. Louis, Missouri payment processing
center instead of the Arlington, Virginia Civil Penalty Compliance Office. Lee
claims that it became aware of the problem when it received a delinquency
notice from MSHA. The Secretary affirms that MSHA mailed a delinquency notice
on July 13, 2015. Lee asserts that it has changed its office procedures to
prevent mistaken address problems from occurring in the future.

MSHA
records reflect that the proposed assessment for Docket No. CENT 2015-618-M was
delivered on June 20, 2015, and became a final order on July 20, 2015. Lee
asserts that it timely contested the proposed assessment, but sent the contest
paperwork to MSHA’s St. Louis, Missouri payment processing center instead of
the Arlington, Virginia Civil Penalty Compliance Office. According to Lee, the
penalty assessments for the citations involved in Docket Nos. CENT 2015-522-M
and CENT 2015-618-M were received and addressed around the same time. Lee
claims that it did not discover the error in Docket No. CENT 2015-618-M until
after it submitted the motion to reopen for Docket No. CENT 2015-522-M and reviewed
its citation history on MSHA’s website.

The Secretary does not oppose the
requests to reopen these cases, but urges the operator to take steps to ensure
that future penalty contests are timely filed.

Having reviewed Lee’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interest of justice,
we hereby reopen these matters and remand them 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/ Patrick K. Nakamura

Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner

Distribution:

Travis
Parker

Safety
Director

Lee
Mechanical Contractors

P.O.
Box 663

Park
Hills, MO 63601

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

[1] This case has
been delegated to a panel of three Commissioners pursuant to section 113(c) of
the Mine Act for the limited purpose of assessing the merits of the motion to
reopen. 30 U.S.C. § 823(c).

[2] Pursuant to
Commission Procedural Rule 12, on our own motion, we hereby consolidate docket
numbers CENT 2015-522-M and CENT 2015-618-M; both captioned Lee Mechanical
Contractors, and involving similar procedural issues. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.12.