F & E Erection Company, Inc. (ALJ decision, July 5, 1988)

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