Secretary of Labor v. Carl A. Johnson, employed by Morton Salt Division/Morton Thiokol Inc.

Plain-English summary

The Secretary charged Carl A. Johnson under section 110(c) of the Mine Act with knowingly authorizing, ordering, or carrying out two alleged violations at the Morton Salt Weeks Island Mine. One order involved 30 C.F.R. § 57.9003 and had an initial assessment of $400, and the other involved 30 C.F.R. § 57.11050 and also had an initial assessment of $400. Judge George A. Koutras approved a settlement requiring Johnson to pay $400 total, in installments, after considering his unemployment and the Secretary's information about the penalty factors. The order stated that it would not become final until full payment and retained jurisdiction over compliance.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 C.F.R. § 57.9003, 30 C.F.R. § 57.11050, and 29 C.F.R. § 2700.30
• Outcome: The proposed settlements were approved, reducing the two $400 assessments to a combined $400 settlement.
• Key point: The judge approved a reduced settlement after reviewing the penalty factors, the respondent's unemployment, and the agreed installment payment schedule.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.)
Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. CENT 89-54-M
PETITIONER A.C. No. 16-00970-05610-A

        v.                                 Docket No. CENT 89-60-M
                                           A.C. No. 16-00970-05613-A

CARL A. JOHNSON,
EMPLOYED BY MORTON SALT DIVISION/ Morton Salt Weeks Island Mine
MORTON THIOKOL INC.,
RESPONDENT

                        DECISIONS APPROVING SETTLEMENTS

Before: Judge Koutras

                          Statement of the Proceedings

 These proceedings concern proposals for assessment of civil

penalties filed by the petitioner against the individually named
respondent pursuant to section 110(c) of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act of 1977, for allegedly "knowingly" authorizing,
ordering, or carrying out, two alleged violations of certain
mandatory safety standards found in Part 57, Title 30, Code of
Federal Regulations. The respondent has filed answers to the
proposals, and the petitioner has filed a settlement motion
pursuant to Commission Rule 30, 29 C.F.R. 2700.30, seeking
approval of a proposed settlement of the cases. The violations,
initial assessments, and the proposed settlement amounts are as
follows:

Docket No. CENT 89-54-M

                           30 C.F.R.

Order No. Date Section Assessment Settlement

2866484 08/25/87 57.9003 $400 $200

Docket No. CENT 89-60-M

                           30 C.F.R.

Order No. Date Section Assessment Settlement

2866117 08/25/87 57.11050 $400 $200

                           Discussion

 In support of the proposed settlement disposition of these

cases, the petitioner has submitted information pertaining to the
civil penalty criteria found in section 110(i) of the Act.
Additional information provided by the petitioner reflects that
the respondent is no longer employed by Morton Thiokol, Inc., and
has moved from LaFayette, Louisiana, to Butte, Montana. The
respondent states that he is unemployed. Under these
circumstances, the petitioner submits that the proposed
settlement disposition of these cases is fair and reasonable,
fully takes into consideration the criteria under section 110(i)
of the Act, and is in the public interest.

 The petitioner states that the respondent proposes to pay

the settlement amount of $400 in monthly installments, and has
tendered the first installment of $135 with his settlement letter
of July 13, 1989, a copy of which is included with the
petitioner's settlement motion. The remaining two installments of
$132.50 each will be paid over the next 2 months.

                           Conclusion

 After careful review and consideration of the pleadings,

arguments, and submissions in support of the motion to approve the
proposed settlement of these cases, I conclude and find that the
proposed settlement dispositions are reasonable and in the
public interest. Accordingly, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2700.30,
the motion filed by the petitioner IS GRANTED, and the
settlements ARE APPROVED.

                             ORDER

 The respondent IS ORDERED to pay the agreed-upon civil

penalty assessments in the aforementioned amounts, and in
accordance with the aforementioned payment schedule agreed to by
the parties. This decision will not become final until such time
as full payment is made by the respondent to the petitioner, and
I retain jurisdiction in this matter until payment of all
installments are remitted and received by the petitioner.

 In the event the respondent fails to make full payment, or

otherwise fails to comply with the terms of the settlement,
petitioner is free to file a motion seeking appropriate sanctions
or further action against the respondent, including a reopening
of the cases.

                              George A. Koutras
                              Administrative Law Judge