Essroc Corporation (Commission decision, January 31, 1992)

Plain-English summary

Essroc Corporation sought Commission review of an ALJ decision involving Clifford Meek's Mine Act discrimination claim. The ALJ had found a violation of section 105(c) but had not set specific monetary relief and had ordered the parties to confer about damages. Because the December 24, 1991 decision was expressly not a final disposition, the Commission dismissed Essroc's review petition as premature and without prejudice.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)
• Outcome: Essroc's petition for discretionary review was dismissed without prejudice as premature.
• Key point: Commission review was unavailable while the ALJ proceeding remained unresolved on monetary relief.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1730 K STREET NW, 6TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

January 31, 1992

CLIFFORD MEEK
..
.
v. LAKE 90-132-DM

ESSROC CORPORATION

ORDER

On January 23, 1992, ESSROC Corporation filed a petition for dis- cretionary review of the December 24, 1991 decision in this matter. In the decision the presiding Commission administrative law judge concluded that a violation of section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 occurred, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. However, the judge did not set forth specific monetary relief but ordered the parties to confer in an effort to stipulate to the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded. Indeed, the judge expressly stated that the December 24, 1991 decision was not a final disposition of the proceeding.

Accordingly, the respondent's petition for discretionary review is premature and therefore it is dismissed without prejudice. See, e.g., Joseph A. Campbell v. Anaconda Co., 2 FMSHRC 1519 (1981).

For the Commission:

Chairman

81