Leeco, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Ricky Hays alleged that Leeco discharged him after he refused to service a continuous haulage system while it was operating because he believed the work was unsafe. Judge George A. Koutras affirmed an earlier order allowing Hays, his attorneys, and an expert to enter the underground mine to inspect, measure, and possibly photograph the equipment. The judge found that the need for the inspection outweighed Leeco's objections about burden and safety, subject to agreed safety conditions and minimal disruption.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.10
• Outcome: The mine-entry discovery order was affirmed, and Leeco was directed to permit the inspection.
• Key point: An on-site inspection may be ordered when it is reasonably necessary to prepare a discrimination case and can be conducted with appropriate safety controls.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
RICKY HAYS V. LEECO
DDATE:
19900416
TTEXT:

Page 2

~907

          FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
                         FALLS CHURCH, VA
                          April 16, 1990

RICKY HAYS, DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
Complainant
v. Docket No. KENT 90-59-D
MSHA Case No. BARB CD 89-32
LEECO, lNC.,
Respondent No. 62 Mine

      ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE ORDER GRANTING
       MOTION TO PERMIT ENTRY UPON DESIGNATED LAND

 This matter is scheduled for a hearing in Pikeville, Kentucky, on

Tuesday, May 8, 1990. The parties have engaged in pretrial discovery,
including the scheduling of depositions. On April 13, 1990, complainant's
counsel filed a motion seeking an order permitting the complainant, his
counsel, and an expert witness to enter the respondent's underground mine
for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, and possibly photographing the
continuous haulage system. The complainant claims that he was discharged
because he had not serviced a grease fitting on the No. 1 bridge of said
haulage system. He contends that the respondent required its electricians
to service the equipment while it is in operation, in violation of Federal
law, and that his failure to service the equipment was based on his belief
that it would be unsafe to do so.

 ln support of the motion, complainant's counsel stated that he was

unfamiliar with the continuous haulage system and has been informed by
Long Airdox, the manufacturer, that there are no such systems available for
inspection in Kentucky other than in underground mines. Counsel asserted
that the inspection of the system is fundamental to a thorough preparation
of his case, and that counsel and the expert witness are willing to receive
the necessary training before entering the mine, and are willing to inspect
the system during a non-production shift. Counsel stated further that
after contacting the respondent's counsel seeking permission to enter the
mine, he was informed that the respondent would not permit any entry into
its mine without a court order.

 On April 6, 1990, I issued an order granting the complainant's motion

to permit entry into the respondent's mine. The order was issued before
the expiration of the available 10-day period for a response pursuant to
commission Rule 10, 29 C.F.R. 2700.10. The respondent's counsel has now
filed a

Page 3

~908
motion to vacate my order and to deny the complainant's motion to permit
entry to the mine. In support of his motion, counsel states that no order
should have issued until on or after April 12, 1990, and he seeks leave to
file his response and objections to the complainant's motion. With regard
to the merits of the complainant's motion to permit entry to the mine,
counsel advances the following arguments in support of his objections:

 1.   The respondent has already provided to the complainant's

attorney the name of the manufacturer and the model numbers of the
equipment in question, and complainant's counsel should be able to
obtain photographs, diagrams, specifications, etc., sufficient for a
determination as to the safety of greasing the equipment in question.
Further, if the complainant has retained an "expert" on this matter,
such expert, as a prerequisite of his being permitted to give opinion
testimony, should already be familiar with the equipment in question.

 2.   The discovery requested by the complainant poses an undue

burden upon the respondent. If the complainant's motion were granted,
the respondent would be required to designate personnel to escort the
complainant's attorneys and expert witness into the mine, at the cost of
several man hours. It would also appear that the respondent is expected
to provide safety training and orientation to the attorneys and experts.
Further, the inexperience of the attorneys and experts as to the hazards
presented in an underground coal mine, even during a nonproduction shift,
poses a threat of harm not only to the attorneys and experts but to the
employees at the mine as well.

 On April 11, 1990, I held a telephone conference with counsel for

the parties and heard further arguments with respect to the motion,
including the complainant's response to the respondent's objections, which
were subsequently reduced to writing and filed with me on April 13, 1990.
Complainant's counsel has reasserted his need for an on-site inspection of
the continuous haulage system, which he believes is crucial to his case.
Counsel states that he intends to depose two of the respondent's key
witnesses who are "intimately familiar" with the system, and in order to
adequately prepare for the taking of their depositions, as well as the
trial of the case on the merits of the complaint, it is essential that he
be permitted to examine the system in place at the respondent's mine.
Counsel further states that he has travelled underground, has completed a
40-hour inexperienced miner's safety training course required by the State
of Kentucky, and that during the requested mine visit, the

Page 4

~909
complainant and his representatives would be accompanied at all times
by the respondent's agents.

                         Conclusion

  After careful consideration of the further arguments advanced by

the parties, including the respondent's objections, I conclude and find
that the complainant has established a reasonable basis for his request
to enter the mine under the conditions stated in his motions, and that
on balance, they outweigh the arguments advanced by the respondent. Under
the circumstances, and upon further consideration of my prior ruling and
order of April 6, 1990, lT IS AFFIRMED, and the respondent's objections
ARE DENIED.

                           ORDER

 The respondent IS ORDERED to permit the complainant, his attorneys,

and expert witness to enter the mine for the purpose of inspecting,
measuring, and possibly photographing the continuous haulage system in
question. Counsel for the parties are expected to agree to a mutually
convenient time for the mine visit, taking into account the safety of
the inspection party, and with the least amount of disruption to the
respondent's mining operations.

 In view of the proximity of the scheduled hearing, and the

complainant's established need for inspecting the haulage system prior
to the anticipated taking of the depositions of respondent's witnesses,
respondent is expected to expeditiously comply with this order.

                          George A. Koutras
                          Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Tony Oppegard, Esq., Appalachian Research & Defense Fund of Kentucky, Inc.,
P.0. Box 360, Hazard, KY 41701 (Certified Mail)

Stephen A. Sanders, Esq., Appalachian Research & Defense Fund of Kentucky,
Inc., 205 Front Street, Prestonburg, KY 41653
(Certified Mail)

Timothy Joe Walker, Esq., Reece, Lang & Breeding, P.0. Drawer 5087, London,
KY 40741 (Certified Mail)