Ezel / Agency Decisions / PENN 86-227-D

Barnes & Tucker Company (ALJ decision, October 1, 1986)

Barnes & Tucker Company (FMSHRC PENN 86-227-D): Settled discrimination complaint dismissed

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
PENN 86-227-D
Decided
October 1, 1986
Presiding judge
Paul Merlin
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-19
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1986 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 1986
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. 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 brought a discrimination complaint on behalf of miner Andrew J. Dubetsky against Barnes & Tucker Company concerning its Lancashire No. 20 Mine. He reached a settlement with the company, accepted a lump-sum payment, and chose to withdraw the complaint. The Secretary of Labor supported the withdrawal. Judge Paul Merlin independently found the settlement fair and consistent with the Mine Act, granted the motion to withdraw, and dismissed the case. The order does not disclose the payment amount or describe the underlying discrimination allegation.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): None specified in the order.
  • Outcome: The discrimination complaint was dismissed after a settlement and withdrawal; the payment amount is not stated.
  • Key point: The judge reviewed the settlement before allowing the miner to withdraw his complaint.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. BARNES & TUCKER
DDATE:
19861001
TTEXT:

~1512

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. PENN 86-227-D
ON BEHALF OF
PITT CD 86-6
ANDREW J. DUBETSKY,
COMPLAINANT
Lancashire No. 20 Mine
v.

BARNES & TUCKER COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Merlin

The miner-complainant has reached a settlement with the operator, has accepted a lump sum payment and has elected to withdraw his complaint. The Solicitor concurs with the settlement and supports the motion to withdraw. Upon independent review of the record, it is found that the settlement is fair and in accord with the Act.

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.

Paul Merlin
Chief 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