Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co.

Plain-English summary

An ALJ found two violations at Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. and assessed a total of $1,950 in penalties after an evidentiary hearing. The judge then confirmed the tentative bench decision after the operator failed to show cause. The Commission held that the written decision did not include the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasons required by Commission Procedural Rule 65(a), 29 C.F.R. § 2700.65(a). It vacated the decision and remanded the case for a decision complying with the Commission's procedural rules. The Commission did not reach the operator's arguments about the penalties.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provision(s): 29 C.F.R. § 2700.65(a), with review provisions at 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2)(A)(i) and (ii).
• Outcome: The ALJ decision was vacated and the case was remanded for a compliant written decision.
• Key point: An ALJ decision must state findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the reasons or bases for them on material issues.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. YOUGHIOGHENY & OHIO COAL
DDATE:
19850917
TTEXT:

                FMSHRC-WDC
               September 17, 1985

SECRETARY OF LABOR
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

 v.                                             Docket No. LAKE 84-98

YOUGHIOGHENY & OHIO COAL CO.

BEFORE: Backley, Acting Chairman; Lastowka and Nelson,
Commissioners

           DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This case is before the Commission on a petition for

discretionary review filed by the Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Company
from a decision issued by the Commission administrative law judge
on August 8, 1985. 7 FMSHRC ____ (August 1985)(ALJ). Youghiogheny
& Ohio's petition for review raises issues concerning (1) the
appropriateness of the civil penalties assessed by the judge and
(2) the legal sufficiency of the judge's final decision, i.e., the
lack of findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the bases for those
findings and conclusions. The text of the judge's final decision is
as follows:

    This matter came on for an evidentiary hearing
in Wheeling, West Virginia on May 30 and 31, 1985.
At the conclusion of the evidence the trial judge entered
a tentative bench decision (Tr. 408-409) finding the two
violations charged did, in fact, occur and that the
penalties warranted were $1,000 for Citation 2203748 and
its companion closure order and $950 for Citation 2327363.

      Upon receipt of the transcript, the trial judge issued

Page 2

an order to show cause why the tentative decision should
not be confirmed as the final disposition of this matter.
The operator having failed to show cause, it is ORDERED
that the tentative decision of May 31, 1985 be, and hereby
is, ADOPTED and CONFIRMED as the final disposition of this
case. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the operator pay the
amount of the penalty found warranted, $1,950, on or before
Monday, August 26, 1985.

Page 3

~1336
We conclude that the judge's decision of August 8, 1985 violates
Commission Procedural Rule 65(a). 29 C.F.R. § 2700.65(a). Rule 65(a),
titled "Decision of the Judge", provides that the judge's decision
"shall be in writing and shall include findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and the reasons or bases for them, on all the material issues
of fact, law or discretion presented by the record ...." In addition,
Rule 65(a) also provides, "If a decision is announced orally from
the bench, it shall be reduced to writing after the filing of the
transcript." The judge's decision in this case fails to meet the
clear and important mandate of Rule 65(a). See Kerr-McGee Nuclear
Corporation, 1 FMSHRC 1783 (November 1979).

Accordingly, the judge's decision is vacated and the case is

remanded to the judge for entry of a decision in accordance with
the Commission's Rules of Procedure. In view of our holding
concerning Rule 65(a), we do not address at this time the
penalty-related arguments that the operator raises in its petition
for review. Following the issuance of the judge's decision on remand,
any party adversely affected may seek Commission review. 30 U.S.C.
§§ 823(d)(2)(A)(i) & (ii).

              Richard V. Backley, Acting Chairman


              James A. Lastowka, Commissioner


              L. Clair Nelson, Commissioner

Page 4

~1337
Distribution:

Robert C. Kota, Esquire
Youghiogheny and Ohio Coal Company
P.O. Box 1000
St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950

Michael McCord, Esquire
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of the Solicitor
4015 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22203

Administrative Law Judge Joseph B. Kennedy
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
2 Skyline, 10th Floor
5203 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, Virginia 22041