Secretary of Labor and United Mine Workers of America v. Monterey Coal Company (Commission decision, November 13, 1979)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary and the United Mine Workers of America brought consolidated cases against Monterey Coal Company. The Commission reversed the judge's decision and sent the cases back, adopting the reasons in its October 29, 1979, Old Ben Coal Company decision without repeating them here. A dissenting commissioner would have affirmed the judge, who had found that Monterey did not supervise or control the shaft-sinking work performed by Frontier-Kemper. The Commission's short order did not decide the cited violations or state a penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: None identified in this Commission order.
• Outcome: Judge's decision reversed; eight consolidated cases remanded for further proceedings. No penalty assessed in this order.
• Key point: The majority applied its Old Ben Coal Company ruling; the dissent disputed Monterey's responsibility for the contractor's shaft-sinking work.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA & UMWA V. MONTEREY COAL
DDATE:
19791113
TTEXT:
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. November 13, 1979
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Docket Nos. HOPE 78-469
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
HOPE 78-470
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
HOPE 78-471
HOPE 78-472
and
HOPE 78-473
HOPE 78-474
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
HOPE 78-475
(UMWA) HOPE 78-476
v.
MONTEREY COAL COMPANY
DECISION
For the reasons stated in our decision in Old Ben Coal Company, No. VINC 79-119 (October 29, 1979), the decision of the administrative law judge is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the above decision. Jerome R. Waldie, Chairman Frank F. Jestrab, Commissioner A. E. Lawson, Commissioner Marian Pearlman Nease, Commissioner Backley, Commissioner, dissenting: I would affirm the decision of Judge Michels for the reasons set forth in his decision and in my dissent in Old Ben Coal Co., No. VINC 79-119. The judge has rejected the absolute or strict liability theory and has found, after an extensive analysis of the evidence, that Monterey "neither supervised nor controlled the shaft-sinking activity performed by Frontier-Kemper." The improper manner of the "shaft-sinking activity," particularly the operation of the winches involved,
~1782
the lack of a loading platform and the presence of men under hoisted loads was the cause of the cited violations. The record clearly reflects that the judge's finding as to the lack of control over this activity by Monterey is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, I am unable to find the necessary relationship between the violations charged and Monterey which I would require as set forth in my dissent in Old Ben. I therefore must disagree with the all too brief opinion of the majority.