Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Coaltrain Corporation (Commission decision, November 30, 1979)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary sought $625 in penalties against Coaltrain Corporation for seven alleged violations. Coaltrain, a five-employee strip mine operator representing itself, denied the allegations and requested a hearing. It answered part of the judge's pretrial order but missed a second response, and the judge entered a default decision assessing $625. The Commission reversed, finding that Coaltrain had substantially complied with the order by explaining its position on each alleged violation and that the record did not show bad faith. It remanded the penalty case for further proceedings. The Commission did not decide whether any alleged violation occurred.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): No individual mine safety standard is identified in this release.
• Outcome: Default decision reversed and penalty case remanded; the judge's $625 assessment was set aside.
• Key point: On this record, the small operator's incomplete response to one pretrial requirement did not justify default when it had substantially complied and sought a hearing.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. COALTRAIN
DDATE:
19791130
TTEXT:

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.
November 30, 1979

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v. Docket No. MORG 79-26-P

COALTRAIN CORPORATION

DECISION

On November 22, 1978, the Secretary of Labor filed a petition for assessment of civil penalty against Coaltrain Corporation seeking penalties totaling $625 for seven alleged violations of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.A. $801 et seq. (1978). On December 11, the president of Coaltrain, a strip mine operator with five employees, answered pro se, denying the alleged violations and requesting a hearing. On May 1, 1979, the administrative law judge issued a notice of hearing and pretrial order which set forth extensive pre-hearing requirements. Initial responses to the pretrial order were timely filed on May 25 by Coaltrain and the Secretary. In its response, Coaltrain set forth its version of the facts and circumstances concerning each alleged violation, as requested by the pretrial order, and again requested a hearing. On June 15, the Secretary timely responded to the second portion of the pretrial order, listing his intended hearing witnesses and exhibits. Coaltrain did not respond to the second portion of the order. On June 20 the judge sua sponte entered a default decision against Coaltrain for failing to "fully respond to the pretrial order ... or to show cause why such failure should be excused." 1/ The judge ordered Coaltrain to pay a penalty of $625. On July 20, we directed review sua sponte.

We reverse. The record contains no indication that this small,

pro se operator was not acting in good faith in attempting to comply with the pretrial requirements by setting forth its position on each of the
_______
1/ The judge did not conduct a show cause proceeding, pursuant to interim procedural rule 26 prior to entering the default. Rather, he apparently acted upon a statement in the pretrial order that "except for good cause shown in advance thereof, any failure to comply in full and on time with the provisions of this order shall be deemed cause for the issuance of an order of dismissal or default."

~1832
seven alleged violations in this relatively uncomplicated penalty case. In the circumstances of this case, we find that Coaltrain substantially complied with the pretrial order and that the judge erred in defaulting the operator. 2/

Accordingly, the judge's decision is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Marian Pearlman
Nease, Commissioner
________
2/ The Secretary, who did not move before the judge to default the operator, took essentially this position in his brief to the Commission on review.