F & E Erection Company, Inc.
F & E Erection Company, Inc. (FMSHRC CENT 87-53-M): Settlement approved and $3,000 assessed
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1988 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.
Plain-English summary
F & E Erection Company faced a civil penalty proceeding involving the Dallas Quarry & Plant. The parties jointly proposed reducing the penalties from $8,000 to $3,000 and later presented evidence supporting the settlement at a hearing. Judge Avram Weisberger found the settlement appropriate under the Mine Act's penalty criteria and ordered the company to pay $3,000 within 30 days.
Decision snapshot
- Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
- Outcome: The settlement was approved and the penalty was reduced from $8,000 to $3,000.
- Key point: The Judge approved the negotiated penalty after considering the parties' representations, documents, and testimony.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. F & E ERECTION
DDATE:
19880705
TTEXT:
Page 2
~887
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.)
Office of Administrative Law Judges
SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. CENT 87-53-M
PETITIONER A.C. No. 41-00022-05501 B96
v.
Dallas Quarry & Plant
F & E ERECTION COMPANY, INC.,
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Appearances: Rebecca A. Siegel, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
Department of Labor, Dallas, Texas, for the Secretary;
Michael Black, Esq., Burns and O'Gorman, San Antonio,
Texas, for Respondent
Before: Judge Weisberger
Statement of the Case
In a telephone conference call initiated by the undersigned
with Counsel for both Parties on November 27, 1987, to determine
the status of the case, it was indicated that Counsel were
discussing a possible settlement of the case. On March 1, 1988,
the Parties submitted a joint Motion to Approve a Settlement
Agreement proposing a reduction in penalties from $8,000 to
$3,000. It was determined that the Motion, and accompanying
documents, did not contain sufficient information to allow
approval of the settlement. A hearing was scheduled for April 12,
1988, in San Antonio, Texas, to allow the Parties to present
evidence in support of the Motion to Approve Settlement. On April
12, 1988, the case was adjourned due to the sudden death that
morning of Respondent's Superintendent Steven Harless.
Subsequent to notice a hearing was held on May 19, 1988, on
the Motion to Approve Settlement. I have considered the
representations, documentation, and testimony submitted in this
case, and I conclude that the proffered settlement is appropriate
under the criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Act.
Page 3
~888
WHEREFORE, the motion for approval of settlement is GRANTED, and
it is ORDERED that Respondent pay a penalty of $3,000 within 30
days of this order.
Avram Weisberger
Administrative Law Judge
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1988, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.