Ezel / Agency Decisions / PENN 87-183-D

The Florence Mining Co. (ALJ decision, November 16, 1987)

The Florence Mining Co. (FMSHRC PENN 87-183-D): Discrimination complaint withdrawn after settlement

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
PENN 87-183-D
Decided
November 16, 1987
Presiding judge
James A. Broderick
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-20
Cited standards
30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(3)
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1987 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 1987
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 binding on the Commission in other cases. 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

Leonard W. Miller filed a discrimination complaint against The Florence Mining Co. after receiving a verbal warning for not operating his shuttle car fast enough. He sought an apology from his foreman. After the parties amicably resolved the matter, Miller asked to withdraw the complaint. Judge James A. Broderick approved the withdrawal and dismissed the proceeding.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(3)
  • Outcome: The motion to withdraw was granted, and the discrimination proceeding was dismissed.
  • Key point: An ALJ may approve withdrawal of a section 105(c)(3) complaint after the parties resolve the dispute.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
LEONARD MILLER V. THE FLORENCE MINE
DDATE:
19871116
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1948

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

LEONARD W. MILLER,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
v. Docket No. PENN 87-183-D

THE FLORENCE MINING CO.,
Florence No. 2 Mine
RESPONDENT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Broderick

On November 13, 1987, Complainant moved to withdraw his complaint because he has amicably resolved the matter with Respondent.

The complaint, filed under 105(c)(3) of the Act, alleges that Complainant received a verbal warning for not operating his shuttle car fast enough. The relief he sought was an apology from his foreman.

I have considered the motion in the light of the purposes of section 105(c) and conclude that it should be approved.

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

James A. Broderick
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