Secretary of Labor v. Zeigler Coal Company (ALJ decision, February 1, 1985)

Plain-English summary

Zeigler Coal Company and the Secretary of Labor proposed to settle two citations at the Zeigler No. 5 Mine. One concerned equipment permissibility and a possible fire or explosion; the other concerned electrical maintenance and possible shock. The proposed penalties were $91 each after a 30 percent discount for prompt correction, totaling $182. Judge Joseph B. Kennedy approved this settlement but found the discount excessive in light of the violations' seriousness and the operator's negligence. He warned that similar discounts might cause him to reject future settlements. The case was to be dismissed after payment.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: The decision describes two violations but does not identify their regulation numbers.
• Outcome: Settlement approved for $182, subject to payment by February 15, 1985.
• Key point: The judge accepted this settlement while questioning a routine discount that did not adequately account for gravity and negligence.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. ZEIGLER COAL
DDATE:
19850201
TTEXT:
~213
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. LAKE 84-106
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 11-01845-03554
v.
Zeigler No. 5 Mine
ZEIGLER COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Kennedy

This matter is before me on the parties' motion to approve settlement of the captioned matter.

The penalties initially assessed amounted to $130 each for (1) a permissibility violation that could have resulted in a fire or explosion and (2) an electrical maintenance violation that could have caused an electrical shock of unspecified, but obviously lethal, severity. Both violations were the result of run-of-the-mine negligence, i.e., negligence that repeatedly recurs. Despite the gravity and negligence involved, MSHA rewarded the operator with a 30% discount for prompt abatement. This resulted in a net penalty of $91 each for the violations charged.

Based on an independent evaluation and de novo review of the circumstances, I find the discount for prompt abatement excessive and serve notice that in the future I may feel compelled to deny settlements where the formula discount is awarded without proper regard for the gravity and negligence involved in serious violations. For this case, however, I find the settlement proposed acceptable.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion be, and hereby is, GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the operator pay the amount of the settlement agreed upon, $182, on or before Friday, February 15, 1985, and that subject to payment the captioned matter be DISMISSED.

Joseph B. Kennedy
Administrative Law Judge