Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Central Ohio Coal Company (Commission decision, June 21, 1982)

Plain-English summary

The Commission reviewed a settlement between MSHA and Central Ohio Coal Company because the agreement said the operator was not admitting a Mine Act violation. Applying its recent Amax Lead decision, the Commission held that parties may admit or deny a violation in a settlement and that approval cannot depend on an admission. It affirmed the judge's approval of the settlement. Commissioner A. E. Lawson dissented, reasoning that payment of a civil penalty requires an underlying violation. The decision does not state the settlement amount.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2)(B).
• Outcome: The judge's settlement approval was affirmed over a dissent; no penalty amount is stated.
• Key point: A settlement agreement may deny a violation while resolving a civil penalty case.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. CENTRAL OHIO COAL
DDATE:
19820621
TTEXT:
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. June 21, 1982 SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v. Docket No. LAKE 81-78

CENTRAL OHIO COAL COMPANY

DECISION
This case arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. $ 801 et seq. (Supp. III 1979). Pursuant to 30 U.S.C. $ 823(d)(2)(B) the Commission sua sponte directed review of the following issue: Did the judge err in approving this settlement agreement containing an exculpatory clause stating "nothing contained herein shall be deemed an admission by Respondent of a violation of the Federal Mine Safety and Health [Act] of 1977 or any regulation or standard issued thereto." In our recent decision in Amax Lead Company of Missouri, 4 FMSHRC (Docket No. CENT 81-63-M, June 1, 1982), we held that "parties are free to admit or deny the fact of violation in settlement agreements." Slip op. at 3. This holding controls the present case. We emphasize that, in light of the voluntary nature of the settlement process, settlements cannot be conditioned upon an admission of violation. Accordingly, the decision of the administrative law judge approving the settlement at issue is affirmed. A. E. Lawson, Commissioner, dissenting:
~1001
Commissioner Lawson, dissenting:
As stated in my dissent in Amax Lead Company of Missouri, supra, one cannot deny the existence of a violation and at the same time agree to the payment of a civil penalty therefor, since all penalties must be predicated upon the existence of a violation. Section 110(a); Co-op Mining Company, 2 FMSHRC 3475 (1980). Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of the administrative law judge approving the settlement in this matter.
~1002
Distribution
Debra L. Feuer, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
4015 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, Virginia 22203
David M. Cohen, Esq.
American Electric Power Service Corporation P.0. Box 700 Lancaster, Ohio 43130