Mathies Coal Company

Plain-English summary

The judge had previously found that Mathies Coal interfered with Joseph G. DeLisio's right as a miners' representative to accompany federal inspectors underground. After the Commission stayed finality while the parties addressed a request for clarification, they agreed to a 90-day trial arrangement involving DeLisio's shift and transportation to the inspection starting point. The trial period ended without further objection, and Judge George A. Koutras approved the settlement and ordered the parties to comply with it.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(1)
• Outcome: The remedial settlement was approved and the parties were ordered to comply with its terms.
• Key point: A conditional work-schedule and transportation arrangement can resolve the remedial terms of a miners' representative discrimination case after a liability finding.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. MATHIES COAL
DDATE:
19870529
TTEXT:

Page 2

~977

        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 86-83-D
ON BEHALF OF MSHA Case No. CD 85-9
JOSEPH G. DELISIO, JR.,
COMPLAINANT Mathies Mine

              v.

MATHIES COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

           SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Koutras

                        Statement of the Case

 On November 21, 1986, I rendered a decision in which I

concluded that the respondent violated section 105(c)(1) of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(1)
by unlawfully interferring with the complainant's right as a
representative of miners to accompany federal inspectors during
inspections of the mine. To remedy the violation, I ordered the
respondent to permit the contestant to drive his private
automobile to the mine portal where inspections normally begin
or, in the alternative, provide him with company transportation
underground to that location, 8 FMSHRC 1772, 1837 (November
1986).

 Subsequent to the issuance of my decision, MSHA filed a

"Request for Clarification" of my remedial order. Since my
jurisdiction terminated upon the release of my decision, I
declined to rule on the request, and referred it to the
Commission. In an order issued on December 30, 1986, the
Commission stayed the running of the 40Äday period within which
my decision would have become final, and directed the respondent
to respond to MSHA's request for clarification.

Page 3

~978
On January 2, 1987, MSHA filed a supplement to its request for
clarification, and on January 7, 1987, the respondent filed its
response. Thereafter, on February 3, 1987, the Commission issued
another order remanding this matter to me for the purpose of
ruling on MSHA's request, 9 FMSHRC 193 (February 1987). In its
remand, the Commission stated as follows at 9 FMSHRC 195:

      This matter is remanded to the judge to rule upon the
      request for clarification. The judge may conduct such
      expedited proceedings as may be necessary for purposes
      of his ruling. Any party dissatisfied with the judge's
      further ruling may timely petition the Commission for
      review of the decision as clarified or amended.

 In compliance with the Commission's remand, I scheduled a

hearing in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on March 12, 1987, to afford
the parties an opportunity to be heard on MSHA's clarification
request. However, on March 9, 1987, MSHA's counsel advised me
that the parties reached a settlement on the remedial dispute in
question, and the hearing was cancelled to afford the parties an
opportunity to file their settlement proposal with me for my
review and appropriate disposition.

 On March 16, 1987, the parties confirmed their proposed

settlement, and they filed a Memorandum of Understanding executed
on February 25, 1987, by Mr. Edmund Baker, General Manager of the
Mathies Mine, Mr. DeLisio, and Mr. Ronald Stipanovich, President,
UMWA Local 2244. The pertinent terms of the settlement are as
follows:

      Mr. DeLisio's daylight shift starting and ending times
      at the Thomas Portal will be changed to 7:30 a.m. and
      3:30 p.m. The change in the daylight shift times will
      apply only to Mr. DeLisio in his capacity as the
      designated miner for walkaround inspections. The change
      would not be applicable should the mine examiner's job
      at the Thomas Portal be filled by some other miner who
      is not the designated miner.

      Mr. DeLisio will make a good faith effort to promptly
      begin and proceed with his underground travel. The
      Company will make a good faith effort to minimize
      traffic on the haulage line during the 7:30 to 8:00
      a.m. period. It is anticipated that such efforts by
      both parties will enable Mr. DeLisio, under normal
      conditions, to reach the Linden Portal in time to begin
      the walkaround with the federal inspector.

Page 4

~979
The shift adjustment for Mr. DeLisio will be subject to a 90
calendar day trial period. At any time during the trial period
either party may terminate the shift adjustment and this
understanding. Following the trial period if both parties are in
agreement with this agreement then it will become binding. The
trial period will begin with Mr. DeLisio's first daylight shift
after confirmation of this understanding.

 In view of the fact that the settlement agreement was

conditioned on the completion of a 90Äday trial period, during
which time either party could terminate Mr. Delisio's adjusted
work schedule and request a further hearing in the matter, I
issued a Stay Order on March 27, 1987, staying further
disposition of this case in order to allow the 90Äday trial
period to run its course.

                           Discussion

 The 90Äday trial period has now been completed, and I have

heard nothing further from the parties. After careful
consideration of the terms of the settlement between the parties
with respect to the remedial aspects of my original decision and
order of November 21, 1986, I conclude and find that it reflects
a reasonable resolution of the dispute, and I see no reason why
it should not be approved. In view of the settlement disposition,
MSHA's previously filed Motion for Clarification is moot.

                      CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 The settlement agreement entered into by the parties in this

matter IS APPROVED. The parties are JOINTLY ORDERED to fully
comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. In view of the
approval of the settlement, the March 12, 1987, request by the
parties to close the record in this case IS GRANTED.

                            George A. Koutras
                            Administrative Law Judge