Cintas Corporation (Commission decision, April 27, 2009)
Cintas Corporation (FMSHRC LAKE 2008-594-M): Timely telephone contest supported reopening
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2009, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Cintas apparently contacted an MSHA district office within 30 days of receiving the assessment and told agency employees by telephone that it was contesting the penalty. MSHA had no written record of receiving a contest form. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission reopened and remanded the final assessment, directing the Secretary to file a penalty petition within 45 days.
Decision snapshot
- Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28; 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
- Outcome: The final assessment was reopened and remanded for further proceedings.
- Key point: Evidence of timely oral notice to MSHA supported reopening despite the absence of a written contest record.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW
SUITE 9500
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
April 27, 2009
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
v.
CINTAS CORPORATION
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket No. LAKE 2008-594-M
A.C. No. 12-02063-148442 K850
BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan, Young, and Cohen, Commissioners
ORDER
BY THE COMMISSION:
This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On August 8, 2008, the Commission received from Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”) a letter seeking to reopen a penalty assessment that had become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).
Under section 105(a) of the Mine Act, an operator who wishes to contest a proposed penalty must notify the Secretary of Labor no later than 30 days after receiving the proposed penalty assessment. If the operator fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).
We have held, however, that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessments that have become final Commission orders under section 105(a). Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993) (“JWR”). In evaluating requests to reopen final section 105(a) orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which, for example, a party could be entitled to relief from a final order of the Commission on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) (“the Commission and its Judges shall be guided so far as practicable by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); JWR, 15 FMSHRC at 787. We have also observed that default is a harsh remedy and that, if the defaulting party can make a showing of good cause for a failure to timely respond, the case may be reopened and appropriate proceedings on the merits permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).
The Secretary states that she does not oppose the reopening of the proposed penalty assessment but has no written record of having received a contest form. The record indicates that a company official apparently contacted the district office of the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) within 30 days of receiving the proposed penalty assessment and informed MSHA employees by telephone that it was contesting the proposed penalty at issue.
Having reviewed Cintas’ request and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of justice, we hereby reopen this matter and remand it to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700. Accordingly, consistent with Rule 28, the Secretary shall file a petition for assessment of penalty within 45 days of the date of this order. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.
Michael F. Duffy, Chairman
Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner
Michael G. Young, Commissioner
Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner
Distribution:
Cathie Thomas
Human Resources Mngr.
Cintas Corp.
7233 Enterprise Park Dr.
Evansville, IN 47715
W. Christian Schumann, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220
Arlington, VA 22209-2296
Myra James, Chief
Office of Civil Penalty Compliance
MSHA
U.S. Dept. of Labor
1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick
Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500
Washington, D.C. 20001-2021
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace