Keystone Coal Mining Corp. (ALJ decision, October 31, 1994)
Keystone Coal Mining Corp. (FMSHRC PENN 94-281-D): Settlement approved and discrimination proceeding dismissed
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1994 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.
Plain-English summary
The Secretary of Labor brought a discrimination proceeding on behalf of miners who alleged discrimination under section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act. The parties agreed that the miners named in the settlement would receive the agreed back pay. Judge William Fauver found the settlement consistent with the purpose of section 105(c) of the Act and approved it. The proceeding was dismissed after the parties were ordered to comply promptly with the settlement terms.
Decision snapshot
- Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c) and 30 U.S.C. § 815(d)
- Outcome: The settlement was approved, the parties were ordered to comply with its terms, and the proceeding was dismissed.
- Key point: The judge approved the back-pay settlement after finding it consistent with the purpose of the Mine Act's discrimination provision.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. KEYSTONE COAL
DDATE:
19941031
TTEXT:
Page 2
~2185
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041
SECRETARY OF LABOR, : DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) : Docket No. PENN 94-281-D ex rel., DALE BEERS, : PITT CD 93-18 ROY HARVEY, HUGH KELLS : AND LARRY ROUGEAUX, ON : Urling No. 1 Mine BEHALF OF MIDNIGHT AND :
DAYSHIFT MINERS,
:
Complainant :
v. :
:
KEYSTONE COAL MINING CORP., :
Respondent :
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Before: Judge Fauver
This is an action for back pay, based upon an alleged act of discrimination under 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
The parties have moved the judge to approve a settlement agreement in which the miners named in the settlement shall be paid the back pay agreed to.
I have considered the reasons and documentation submitted and I conclude that the proposed settlement is consistent with the purpose of 105(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the settlement is approved.
ORDER
1. The motion to approve a settlement is GRANTED.
2. The parties shall promptly comply with all of the terms of the settlement.
3. Based upon the above, this proceeding is DISMISSED.
William Fauver
Administrative Law Judge
Page 3
~2186
Distribution:
Maureen A. Russo, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 3535 Market St., Gateway Building 14480, Philadelphia, PA 19104
R. Henry Moore, Esq., Buchanan Ingersoll, PC, USX Tower, 57th Floor, 600 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219
/lt
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