Benjamin Coal Company

Plain-English summary

John A. Harris, a blaster for Benjamin Coal Company, challenged his discharge after a surface blasting incident that caused fatal injuries to a mine foreman. Judge George A. Koutras found that Harris's complaint did not allege that the discharge resulted from protected activity under section 105(c)(1) of the Mine Act. He ordered Harris to show cause within 15 days why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(1)
• Outcome: The judge issued a show-cause order requiring Harris to explain why the discrimination complaint should not be dismissed.
• Key point: A discrimination complaint must connect the challenged employment action to the statutory rights protected by section 105(c).

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

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

JOHN A. HARRIS, DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
v. Docket No. PENN 87-72-D
MSHA Case No. PITT CD 86-20
BENJAMIN COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT Benjamin No. 1 Strip Mine

                         ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

                        Statement of the Case

 This proceeding concerns a complaint of discrimination filed

by Mr. Harris against the respondent pursuant to section 105(c)
of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. The complaint
was filed on December 30, 1986, after Mr. Harris was advised by
the Secretary of Labor (Mine Safety and Health Administration),
that his complaint filed with that agency would not be pursued
further.

 In his complaint filed with the Commission, Mr. Harris

states "I am requesting reinstatement and back pay and clearing
of my name by Benjamin Coal Company. I feel my letter of
termination was very unfair." In response to an order issued by
me on July 10, 1987, Mr. Harris furnished me with a copy of his
termination letter of August 12, 1986. He also furnished me with
a copy of a memorandum report prepared by a Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources supervisory
mine inspector concerning a fatal surface mine blasting accident
which occurred at the respondent's mine on June 17, 1986, and a
copy of a "Civil Penalty Worksheet" proposing a civil penalty
assessment in the amount of $7,750 against the respondent for a
violation of a state regulation concerning "casting blasting
debris."

 The information supplied by Mr. Harris reflects that he was

employed by the respondent as a blaster, and that he was the
blaster who detonated the shot which resulted in fatal injuries
to a mine foreman who was killed by fly rock from the blast. As a
result of this incident, Mr. Harris' state blaster's license was
suspended, and he was subsequently

discharged by the respondent on August 12, 1986, for violation of
company safety rules and for "a pattern of disregard" for company
safety procedures and practices.

 Mr. Harris takes issue with his discharge and asserts that

no other blasters have ever been terminated by the respondent
because of fly rock, and that numerous incidents of vehicle
damage caused by fly rock, and one incident of personal injury
requiring treatment by a doctor, have not resulted in any
terminations or reprimands. He further asserts that his discharge
does not comport with the state civil penalty assessment findings
that the accident was "a freak incident" and that the
respondent's culpability was "questionable."

                           Discussion

 Section 105(c)(1) of the Act provides as follows:

      (c)(1) No person shall discharge or in any manner
      discriminate against or cause to be discharged or cause
      discrimination against or cause discrimination against
      or otherwise interfere with the exercise of the
      statutory rights of any miner, representative of miners
      or applicant for employment in any coal or other mine
      subject to this Act because such miner, representative
      of miners or applicant for employment has filed or made
      a complaint under or related to this Act, including a
      complaint notifying the operator or the operator's
      agent, or the representative of the miners at the coal
      or other mine of an alleged danger or safety or health
      violation in a coal or other mine, or because such
      miner, representative of miners or applicant for
      employment is the subject of medical evaluations and
      potential transfer under a standard published pursuant
      to section 101 or because such miner, representative of
      miners or applicant for employment has instituted or
      caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related
      to this Act or has testified or is about to testify in
      any such proceeding, or because of the exercise by such
      miner, representative of miners or applicant for
      employment on behalf of himself or others of any
      statutory right afforded by this Act.

 Upon review of the complaint filed by Mr. Harris, I find

nothing to suggest that his termination was the result of any

rights or protections afforded him under section 105(c) of the
Act. In short, it would appear from his complaint and the
pleadings filed in this matter that Mr. Harris does not state a
claim for which relief can be granted under section 105(c)(1) of
the Act.

                             ORDER

 In view of the foregoing, the complainant John A. Harris IS

ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within fifteen (15) days as to why his
complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim
for which relief can be granted under section 105(c)(1) of the
Act.

                               George A. Koutras
                               Administrative Law Judge