Grefco, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Grefco, Inc. contested a proposed $192 civil penalty in Docket CENT 91-176-M. An ALJ approved a settlement after the Secretary's counsel mistakenly sent the judge a letter withdrawing Grefco's contest in a different docket, CENT 91-190-M. The Commission treated Grefco's later letter as a request for relief from the final settlement decision and held that the record suggested the settlement order had been entered in error. It vacated the settlement approval and remanded the matter so the judge could determine whether relief was warranted.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. §§ 823(d), 823(d)(1), and 823(d)(2)(B); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.65(c) and 2700.70(a)
• Outcome: The Commission vacated the ALJ's settlement approval and remanded for further proceedings.
• Key point: An agency misdirection that causes an ALJ to approve the wrong settlement can support remand for consideration of relief from the final decision.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. GREFCO
DDATE:
19920115
TTEXT:
January 15, 1992
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v. Docket No. CENT 91-176-M

GREFCO, INC.

BEFORE: Ford, Chairman; Backley, Doyle, Holen, and Nelson, Commissioners
ORDER
BY THE COMMISSION:
This civil penalty proceeding arises under the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. (1988) ("Mine Act"). On November
18, 1991, Commission Administrative Law Judge John J. Morris entered a
decision approving settlement in this case, in which he noted that Grefco,
Inc. ("Grefco") had moved to withdraw its contest and to pay in full the civil
penalty of $192 proposed by the Secretary of Labor. For the reasons explained
below, we vacate the judge's decision approving settlement and remand for
further proceedings.
The record reflects that by letter dated November 1, 1991, Michael
Conley, counsel for Grefco, informed the Commission and counsel for the
Secretary that Grefco would no longer be contesting the proposed penalty in
Grefco, Inc., Docket No. CENT 91-190-M. Counsel for the Secretary
subsequently forwarded Mr. Conley's November 1 letter to Judge Morris, along
with a cover letter explaining that Grefco was withdrawing its contest of the
proposed penalties in the present proceeding, Docket No. CENT 91-176-M. On
November 18, 1991, the judge entered a decision approving settlement, noting
that Grefco had moved to withdraw its contest in the subject case.
On January 2, 1992, the Commission received a letter from Conley dated
December 30, 1991, in which he explains that although Grefco does not contest
the proposed penalties in the unrelated case, Grefco, Inc. Docket No. CENT 91-
190-M, Grefco continues to contest the proposed civil penalties in the subject
case. Conley explains that the judge's decision approving settlement was
mistakenly entered due to the misdirection of Conley's November 1 letter by
the Secretary's counsel, and requests that this matter be returned to Judge
Morris.
The judge's jurisdiction over the case terminated when his decision was
issued. 29 C.F.R. • 2700.65(c). Under the Mine Act and the Commission's
procedural rules, relief from a judge's decision may be sought by filing a
~57

Page 2

petition for discretionary review with the Commission within 30 days of the
decision. 30 U.S.C. • 823(d); 29 C.F.R. • 2700.70(a). Grefco did not file a
timely petition for discretionary review within the 30-day period, nor did the
Commission direct review on its own motion within that period. 30 U.S.C.
823(d)(2)(B). Thus, under the Mine Act, the judge's decision became a final
decision of the Commission 40 days after its issuance. 30 U.S.C. • 823(d)(l).
Under these circumstances, we deem Grefco's December 30 letter to be a request
for relief from a final Commission decision incorporating a late-filed
petition for discretionary review. See J.R. Thompson, Inc., 12 FMSHRC 1194,
1195-96 (June 1990).
Relief from a final judgment on the basis of mistake, inadvertence,
surprise or excusable neglect is available to a movant under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(1) & (6). See, e.g., Lloyd Logging, Inc., 13 FMSHRC 781, 782 (May
1991). The record in this case suggests that the decision approving
settlement may have been entered in error. We conclude that this matter
should be remanded to the judge in order to afford Grefco the opportunity to
present its position to the judge, who shall determine whether final relief
from the decision approving settlement is warranted.
~58
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judge's order approving
settlement and remand this matter to the judge for appropriate proceedings.