FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket KENT 2022-0118 Decided October 19, 2022 Procedural Judge Thomas P. McCarthy

Secretary of Labor on behalf of George Rice v. Nally & Hamilton Enterprises

Secretary of Labor on behalf of George Rice v. Nally & Hamilton Enterprises (FMSHRC KENT 2022-0118): Temporary economic reinstatement ended with Secretary's case

Apply this to your situation

This order from 2022 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ezel answers your situation under the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent, with citations.

Final order, not Commission precedent
This decision by a FMSHRC Administrative Law Judge became the final decision of the Commission 40 days after issuance because the Commission did not direct review (30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1)). It binds the parties but is not binding on the Commission in other cases. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary obtained temporary reinstatement for miner George Rice while MSHA investigated his discrimination claim against Nally & Hamilton Enterprises. The parties then agreed to temporary economic reinstatement and provided that the operator could seek dissolution if the Secretary declined to prosecute the merits complaint. After the Secretary gave that notice, Nally & Hamilton moved to dissolve the order. Judge Thomas McCarthy held that temporary reinstatement ended when the Secretary's involvement ended, dissolved the reinstatement order, and terminated the economic-reinstatement agreement. Rice remained free to file his own discrimination complaint within 30 days of notice of the Secretary's determination.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(3)
  • Outcome: The temporary reinstatement order was dissolved, and the temporary economic-reinstatement agreement was terminated.
  • Key point: Under the parties' agreement and cited precedent, temporary reinstatement ended when the Secretary declined to file a discrimination complaint.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGES

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVE.,
N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC
20004-1710

TELEPHONE: 202-434-9900
/ FAX: 202-434-9949

SECRETARY
OF LABOR

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH       

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA) on behalf of GEORGE RICE,

Complainant

v.

NALLY
& HAMILTON ENTERPRISES,

Respondent

TEMPORARY
REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDING

Docket
No. KENT 2022-0118

MSHA
Case No. BARB-CD-2022-03

Mine:
Meadow Branch Mine

Mine
ID: 15-19890

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISSOLVE ORDER

GRANTING TEMPORARY
ECONOMIC REINSTATEMENT

Before:                        Judge
McCarthy

This matter is before the undersigned on the Secretary
of Labor’s Application for Temporary Reinstatement filed on behalf of miner George
Rice pursuant to Section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801, et seq., as amended (“Act”), and 29 C.F.R.
§ 2700.45.

On September 26, 2022, the undersigned issued an Amended
Order Granting Temporary Reinstatement of Rice. On September 27, 2022, the
parties submitted a Joint Motion to Approve Temporary Economic Reinstatement Agreement
(“Agreement”). The parties agreed that, “[i]f the Secretary notifies Rice that
he has decided not to prosecute Rice’s case on the merits, Nally & Hamilton
will file a motion with the presiding ALJ to dissolve this Agreement, and Rice
will not oppose said motion.” Agreement, 2. On September 28, 2022, the
undersigned accepted the Agreement and issued an Order modifying the September 26,
2022 Order.

On October 14, 2022, the Secretary filed a Notice
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2700.45(g) that he was not going to file a Discrimination
Complaint on Rice’s behalf. On October 18, 2022, the Respondent filed a Motion
to Dissolve the Order Granting Temporary Economic Reinstatement.

Federal circuit courts of appeals and Commission judges
have ruled that, for 105(c) claims such as this one, any “temporary
reinstatement provision ends when the Secretary’s involvement ends” and that
“the termination of [a temporary reinstatement] should rest on the Secretary’s
determination” to not file a Discrimination Complaint. Vulcan Const. v.
FMSHRC , 700 F.3d 297, 310, 311 (7th Cir. 2012); see also N. Fork
Coal Corp. v. FMSHRC , 691 F.3d 735, 744 (6th Cir. 2012); Panther
Creek Mining, LLC , 39 FMSHRC 2001, 2002 (Oct. 2017) (ALJ); Black
River Coal, LLC , 38 FMSHRC 2869, 2870 (Nov. 2016) (ALJ); Teck Alaska,
Inc. , 35 FMSHRC 2891, 2893 (Aug. 2013) (ALJ).

After finding insufficient evidence to pursue a
Discrimination Complaint, the Secretary’s involvement ended. Pursuant to precedent
and the Agreement, the September 26, 2022 Amended Order Granting Temporary
Reinstatement, as modified by the September 28, 2022 Order, is dissolved.

For the foregoing reasons, the September
26, 2022 Order, as modified by the September 28, 2022 Order, is DISSOLVED and
the terms of the September 27, 2022 Temporary Economic Reinstatement Agreement are
TERMINATED . Mr. Rice may elect to file a Discrimination Complaint on his
own behalf with the Commission within 30 days’ notice of the Secretary’s
determination. 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(3).

/s/
Thomas P. McCarthy

Thomas P. McCarthy

Administrative
Law Judge

Distribution:

Thomas
Hamilton

Nally
& Hamilton Enterprises

Saltsman
Willett Deton & Hamilton, PSC

212
E. Stephen Foster Avenue

Bardstown,
KY 40004

( [email protected] )

Joseph
Mattingly

JOSEPH
H. MATTINGLY, PLLC

P.O.
Box 678 - 104 West Main Street

Lebanon,
KY 40033

( [email protected] )

Tony
Oppegard

P.O.
Box 22446

Lexington,
KY 40522

( [email protected] )

Wes
Addington

Appalachian
Citizens’ Law Center

317
Main Street

Whitesburg,
KY 41858

( [email protected] )

Jennifer
M. Tag

Office
of the Solicitor

U.
S. Department of Labor

618
Church Street, Suite 230

Nashville,
TN 37219

( [email protected] )

/vgr

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 2022, 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.