UMWA Local Unions 762, 6430, and 6159 v. LaBelle Processing Company, Vesta Mining Company, and A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc. (ALJ decision, March 29, 1985)

Plain-English summary

Three United Mine Workers of America local unions brought a compensation proceeding against LaBelle Processing Company, Vesta Mining Company, and A.T. Massey Coal Company. The unions then asked to withdraw their complaint and dismiss the case with prejudice. Judge Richard C. Steffey found good cause because the unions had brought the proceeding and the companies did not object. No ruling on the complaint's merits had been made. He deemed the complaint withdrawn and dismissed all further proceedings with prejudice. The order makes no findings about the underlying compensation claim.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: None identified in the order.
• Outcome: Compensation complaint withdrawn; proceedings dismissed with prejudice.
• Key point: The judge closed the case on the complainants' unopposed request without a merits ruling.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
LOCAL UNIONS 762,6430, & 6159 (UMWA) V. LABELLE PROCESSING VESTA MINING & A.T. MASSEY COAL DDATE: 19850329 TTEXT:
~482
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

LOCAL UNION 762, DISTRICT 5, COMPENSATION PROCEEDING (VESTA #5 MINE), UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UMWA), Docket No. PENN 84-92-C

LOCAL UNION 6430, DISTRICT 4, LaBelle Preparation Plant (GATEWAY MINE), UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UMWA),

LOCAL UNION 6159, DISTRICT 4,
(BOBTOWN MINE), UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA (UMWA),
COMPLAINANTS
v.

LABELLE PROCESSING COMPANY,
VESTA MINING COMPANY, AND
A.T. MASSEY COAL COMPANY,
INC.,
RESPONDENTS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

Before: Judge Steffey

Counsel for complainants filed on March 26, 1985, in the above-entitled proceeding a motion to withdraw the complaint for compensation and "for an order dismissing the above proceedings with prejudice but without findings of fact or conclusions of law." The motion states that complainants' counsel has discussed the filing of the motion with respondents' counsel and that respondents are not opposed to the grant of the motion and the dismissal of the proceedings.

A large number of pleadings have been filed by the parties in this proceeding and I have issued several orders granting or denying various procedural requests, but no ruling has been made with respect to the merits of the complaint. Inasmuch as complainants are the parties who instituted the proceeding and inasmuch as respondents have no objection to the grant of the motion, I find that good cause has been shown for granting complainants' motion.

WHEREFORE, it is ordered:
~483
The motion to withdraw the complaint for compensation filed on March 26, 1985, is granted, the complaint is deemed to have been withdrawn, and all further proceedings in Docket No. PENN 84-92-C are dismissed with prejudice.

Richard C. Steffey
Administrative Law Judge