Ezel / Agency Decisions / CENT 85-132-D

A.D. Bracken v. Alpine Construction Company (ALJ decision, April 24, 1986)

A.D. Bracken v. Alpine Construction Company (FMSHRC CENT 85-132-D): Complaint dismissed after conditional withdrawal

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
CENT 85-132-D
Decided
April 24, 1986
Presiding judge
Paul Merlin
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-20
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1986 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1986
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent
This dismissal became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

A.D. Bracken told the Commission he did not want to continue his discrimination case against Alpine Construction Company unless an impartial special investigator unfamiliar with the parties could be assigned. Chief Judge Paul Merlin explained that the Commission could not assign an investigator or conduct the initial investigation of a discrimination complaint; that responsibility belonged to the Secretary of Labor. He dismissed the case in accordance with Bracken's letter. The order does not address the substance of the alleged discrimination.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: No specific Mine Act or safety standard is identified in the dismissal order.
  • Outcome: Discrimination proceeding dismissed following the complainant's conditional withdrawal.
  • Key point: The Commission had no authority to appoint a special investigator for the initial discrimination investigation.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
A. D. BRACKEN V. ALPINE CONSTRUCTION
DDATE:
19860424
TTEXT:
~642

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

A.D. BRACKEN,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
Docket No. CENT 85-132-D v.
MADI CD 85-10
ALPINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before: Judge Merlin

The Complainant has sent a letter to the Commission, dated March 18, 1986, stating that unless an impartial special investigator can be assigned to the case, who does not know him or the other parties, he does not want to pursue this matter any further.

This Commission has no authority to assign a special investigator to this case or to undertake its own initial investigations of discrimination complaints. This responsibility is the Secretary of Labor's.

In accordance with the Complainant's letter therefore, this case is DISMISSED.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace