Secretary of Labor v. Barnes & Tucker Company (ALJ decision, June 9, 1985)

Secretary of Labor v. Barnes & Tucker Company (FMSHRC PENN 85-56): $150 settlement approved

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
PENN 85-56
Decided
June 9, 1985
Presiding judge
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-20

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

The Secretary of Labor and Barnes & Tucker Company proposed a $150 settlement of a civil penalty case involving the Lancashire No. 24-B Mine. MSHA acknowledged that its failure-to-abate closure order had been issued in error. Judge Joseph B. Kennedy also found the evidence supporting the underlying violation marginal after discussing the merits with counsel. He approved the settlement, ordered payment of $150 by July 26, 1985, and made dismissal subject to payment. The release is dated June 9, 1985, but refers to a July 1 discussion; its stated dates are inconsistent.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: Not identified in this settlement order.
  • Outcome: Settlement approved for $150, with dismissal subject to payment.
  • Key point: MSHA acknowledged an erroneous closure order, and the judge found weak evidence for the violation.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. BARNES & TUCKER
DDATE:
19850609
TTEXT:
~1053
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. PENN 85-56
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 36-00837-03536

v. Lancashire No. 24-B Mine

BARNES & TUCKER COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Kennedy

This matter is before me on the parties' motion to approve settlement of the captioned matter in the amount of $150.

Based on an independent evaluation and res nova review of the circumstances, I find the settlement proposed is in accord with the purposes and policy of the Act. MSHA admits that issuance of the failure to abate closure order was in error. Further, an exploration of the merits during the course of a teleconference with counsel on July 1, established that the evidence to support the violation was marginal.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion be, and hereby is, GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the operator pay the amount of the penalty agreed upon, $150, on or before Friday, July 26, 1985, 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