Ezel / Agency Decisions / PENN 84-184-D

John A. Voyten v. Canterbury Coal Company (ALJ decision, January 22, 1985)

John A. Voyten v. Canterbury Coal Company (FMSHRC PENN 84-184-D): Discrimination case settlement approved

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
PENN 84-184-D
Decided
January 22, 1985
Presiding judge
Joseph B. Kennedy
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-20
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1985 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.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1985
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent
This decision became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index for this docket. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

John A. Voyten brought a discrimination case against Canterbury Coal Company concerning its DiAnne Mine. Voyten asked the judge to approve a settlement. Judge Joseph B. Kennedy found the proposed agreement in Voyten's interest and consistent with the Mine Act's purposes. He approved the settlement and ordered Canterbury to pay the agreed amount immediately, with dismissal to follow payment. The public decision does not state the payment amount or describe the underlying discrimination allegation.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: None identified in this settlement order.
  • Outcome: Settlement approved; company ordered to pay the agreed, undisclosed amount; case to be dismissed upon payment.
  • Key point: The judge approved the complainant's settlement request without publishing its amount or the underlying facts.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
J. A. VOYTEN v. CANTERBURY COAL CO.
DDATE:
19850122
TTEXT:
~148
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

JOHN A. VOYTEN,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
v. Docket No. PENN 84-184-D

CANTERBURY COAL COMPANY,
MSHA Case No. PITT CD 84-06
RESPONDENT
DiAnne Mine

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Before: Judge Kennedy

This matter is before me on the complainant's motion to approve settlement.

Based on an independent evaluation of the circumstances, I find the settlement proposed is in the interest of complainant and in accord with the purposes and policy of the Act.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion be, and hereby is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the operator pay FORTHWITH the amount of the settlement agreed upon, and that subject to payment the captioned matter be DISMISSED.

Joseph B. Kennedy
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