Secretary of Labor v. Callender Construction Company, Inc.
Secretary of Labor v. Callender Construction Company, Inc. (FMSHRC LAKE 2020-0189-M): Paid penalties prompted show-cause order
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2022, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Callender Construction moved to reopen a final penalty assessment to contest three citations, but the record indicated that the associated penalties had already been paid. The Commission's acknowledgment letter used the wrong assessment-control number, and the Secretary's unopposed response repeated that number and addressed different citations. The Commission did not decide the reopening request. It ordered both parties to explain within 30 days why the correctly identified case should not be dismissed.
Decision snapshot
- Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
- Outcome: The parties were ordered to show cause why the paid-penalty reopening matter should not be dismissed.
- Key point: A reopening request cannot be resolved reliably when the record uses the wrong assessment number and the identified penalties appear already paid.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W.,
SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710
SECRETARY
OF LABOR,
MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA)
v.
CALLENDER
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket
No. LAKE 2020-0189-M
A.C.
No. 11-00214-494016
BEFORE:
Traynor, Chair; Althen and Rajkovich, 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. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On May 29, 2020, the Commission received from
Callender Construction Company, Inc. (“Callender”) a motion 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).
The
operator’s motion referenced the A.C. No. for the case as 11-00214-494016, and
requested to reopen the case to contest Citation Nos. 9387298, 9387397 [1]
and 9387296. It appears that the operator has paid the outstanding civil
penalties associated with the citations at issue.
We
note that the Commission’s acknowledgement letter incorrectly listed the A.C.
No. as 11-00214-498359. On June 3, 2020, the Commission received a response
from the Secretary of Labor stating that he does not oppose the motion to
reopen, but the Secretary’s response referenced the same A.C. number as the
Commission’s May 29 acknowledgment letter and addressed different citations
from the operator.
Since
it appears the penalties at issue in this motion to reopen have already been
paid,
the
parties are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within 30 days of the date of
this order why this case, AC. No. 11-00214-494016, should not be dismissed.
/s/ Arthur R.
Traynor, III
Arthur
R. Traynor, III, Chair
/s/ William I.
Althen
William I. Althen, Commissioner
/s/ Marco M.
Rajkovich, Jr.
Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.,
Commissioner
Distribution (by
email):
Bruce Callender,
President
Callender
Construction Company, Inc.
928 West
Washington Street
Pittsfield, IL
62363
Emily Toler Scott,
Esq. Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of
Labor
Division of Mine
Safety and Health
201 12th Street
South, Suite 401
Arlington, VA
22202
April Nelson, Esq.,
Associate Solicitor
Office of the
Solicitor
U.S. Department of
Labor
Division of Mine
Safety and Health
201 12th Street
South, Suite 401
Arlington, VA
22202
Melanie Garris,
Chief
Office of Civil
Penalty Compliance
U.S. Department of
Labor
Office of
Assessments
Mine Safety and
Health Administration
201 12th Street
South, Suite 401
Arlington, VA
22202
Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glynn Voisin
Federal Mine
Safety & Health Review Commission
1331 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Suite 520 N
Washington, DC
20004-1710
[1] The operator has
listed this citation number incorrectly in its motion to reopen. The correct
citation number is 9387297.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 2022. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.