Merrell v. Peabody Coal Company

Plain-English summary

Chapman Merrell alleged that Peabody Coal Company violated section 105(c) of the Mine Act when it bypassed him for rehire because he lacked relevant health and safety training under section 115 and 30 C.F.R. Part 48. Peabody argued that the complaint was filed too late. The Commission dismissed the complaint on a different ground, holding that the alleged conduct did not violate section 105(c) under its contemporaneous decisions on the same issue. Because the complaint failed to state a claim for relief, the Commission dismissed the case without reaching the timeliness question.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c), 30 U.S.C. § 825, and 30 C.F.R. Part 48
• Outcome: The discrimination complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Key point: The Commission held that bypassing a laid-off worker for rehire because the worker lacked relevant safety training did not violate section 105(c) under the rule applied in this decision.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
CHAPMAN MERRELL V. PEABODY COAL
DDATE:
19850930
TTEXT:

             FMSHRC-WDC
             SEP 30, 1985

CHAPMAN MERRELL

v. Docket No. KENT 84-250-D

PEABODY COAL COMPANY

BEFORE: Backley, Acting Chairman; Lastowka and Nelson,
Commissioners

               DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

Peabody Coal Company ("Peabody") has applied for interlocutory

review of a Commission administrative law judge's order denying
Peabody's motion to dismiss a discrimination complaint filed by
complainant, Chapman Merrell. The complaint alleges that Peabody
violated section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977 (the "Mine Act"), 30 U.S.C. § 815(c), when it bypassed for rehire
the laid-off complainant (Merrell), because he had not obtained
relevant health and safety training specified in section 115 of the
Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 825, and 30 C.F.R. Part 48. Peabody filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of timeliness in filing.
The judge denied the motion on the grounds that the late filing was
justified and that Peabody suffered no prejudice resulting from the
delay. On March 28, 1985, the Commission granted Peabody's petition
for interlocutory review and stayed further proceedings until
otherwise ordered.

In Peabody Coal Company, KENT 82-103-D, etc., 7 FMSHRC

(September 30, 1985), and Jim Walter Resources, Inc., SE 84-31-D,
etc., 7 FMSHRC (September 30, 1985), we examined the substantive
issue presented in this case: whether an operator violates section
105(c) of the Mine Act when it bypasses for hire laid-off individuals
who lack relevant health and safety training. We held that such a

--- Page 2 ---

policy does not violate section 105(c).

--- Page 3 ---

~1346
Accordingly, and without reaching the question of whether
the judge erred in denying Peabody's motion, we conclude that
Mr. Merrell's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, and we dismiss the case. 1/

              Richard V. Backley, Acting Chairman


              James A. Lastowka, Commissioner


               L. Clair Nelson, Commissioner

1/ Pursuant to section 113(c) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 823(c),
we have designated ourselves as a panel of three members to exercise
the powers of the Commission.

--- Page 4 ---

~1347
Distribution

Earl R. Pfeffer, Esq.
UMWA
900 15th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Michael O. McKown, Esq.
Peabody Coal Company
P.O. Box 373
St. Louis, Missouri 63166

Administrative Law Judge James A. Broderick
Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
5203 Leesburg Pike, 10th Floor
Falls Church, Virginia 22041