Ernst Materials Service (ALJ decision, August 21, 1990)
Ernst Materials Service (FMSHRC LAKE 90-57-DM): Discrimination proceeding dismissed
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1990 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Secretary of Labor sought to dismiss a discrimination proceeding involving Ernst Materials Service after additional investigation showed that the respondent corporation was no longer in business and its owner had died. The Secretary reported that no successor corporation could reasonably be brought into the case. Judge George A. Koutras lifted the stay and granted the motion to dismiss.
Decision snapshot
- Governing provisions: None stated in the release
- Outcome: The stayed discrimination proceeding was dismissed.
- Key point: The case ended after the Secretary determined that no successor corporation could reasonably be impleaded.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. ERNST MATERIALS SERVICE
DDATE:
19900821
TTEXT:
Page 2
~1697
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.) Office of Administrative Law Judges
SECRETARY OF LABOR, DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. LAKE 90-57-DM ON BEHALF OF MSHA Case No. MD 89-65 HARRY W. MULLEN, COMPLAINANT Sand and Gravel Plant
v.
ERNST MATERIALS SERVICE,
RESPONDENT
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before: Judge Koutras
Statement of the Case
On June 12, 1990, I issued an order granting the Secretary's motion for a continuance of the hearing scheduled for June 26, 1990, in Cincinnati, Ohio, and for a stay of the proceeding in order to afford the Secretary time to conduct an additional investigation. The Secretary has now filed a Motion to Dismiss this matter on the ground that further investigation revealed that the respondent corporation is no longer in business and the owner of the former respondent corporation died on June 22, 1990. The Secretary states that an analysis of successor liability was conducted under the standard enunciated in Munsey v. Smitty Baker Coal Company, et al., 2 FMSHRC 3463 and its progeny, and that the results of the analysis show that no successor corporation exists that could reasonably be impleaded by the Secretary.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing circumstances, the previously issued stay order IS LIFTED, and for good cause shown, the Secretary's motion IS GRANTED, and this matter IS DISMISSED.
George A. Koutras
Administrative Law Judge
What applies to your situation today?
This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace