Secretary of Labor on behalf of Corbin and others v. Sugartree Corporation and others (Commission decision, July 16, 1986)

Plain-English summary

While the Commission reviewed a discrimination case involving James and Robert Corbin, the Secretary requested their immediate reinstatement. Both had been reinstated by Terco after the judge's ruling, but Robert was later discharged and James was laid off. They filed new discrimination complaints about those separations. The Commission found conflicting factual accounts and no clear showing that another reinstatement order was warranted at this stage. It denied the motion and said it would expedite review of the underlying case. The order did not decide the new complaints or the pending appeal.

Decision snapshot

• Cited statute: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(2), Mine Act discrimination complaints.
• Outcome: Motion for immediate reinstatement denied; underlying Commission review expedited.
• Key point: Conflicting accounts of the miners' later discharge and layoff prevented an immediate reinstatement order on this record.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. SUGARTREE, TERCO & RANDAL LAWSON
DDATE:
19860716
TTEXT:

FMSHRC-WDC
July 16, 1986

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
on behalf of JAMES CORBIN,
ROBERT CORBIN, and
A. C. TAYLOR

v. Docket No. KENT 84-255-D

SUGARTREE CORPORATION,
TERCO, INC., and RANDAL LAWSON

BEFORE: Chairman Ford; Backley, Doyle, and Lastowka, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

In this matter pending on review, the Secretary of Labor has filed a Motion for Immediate Reinstatement of complainants James and Robert Corbin. Respondent Terco, Inc. ("Terco"), has filed an opposition to the motion.

Pursuant to the decisions of the Commission administrative law judge below sustaining the Secretary's complaint of discriminatory discharge, both Corbins were reinstated by Terco in January 1986. Subsequently, Robert was discharged and James was laid off by Terco. Both Corbins have filed further discrimination complaints with the Secretary concerning their subsequent separations from employment. 30 U.S.C. $ 815(c)(2).

The Secretary has not made a clear showing, nor do we perceive that an order of reinstatement is warranted at this time. The Secretary s motion and Terco's response disclose conflicting factual assertions surrounding the original reinstatements and the subsequent discharge and layoff. Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that an order of reinstatement at this stage of the present proceeding is inappropriate.
~1044
Accordingly, the Secretary's motion is denied. The Commission, however, will expedite the review process in the instant matter.

Ford B. Ford, Chairman

Richard V. Backley, Commissioner

Joyce A. Doyle, Commissioner

James A. Lastowka, Commissioner