The Helen Mining Company; Kentland-Elkhorn Coal Corporation; Allied Chemical Corporation (Commission decision, March 21, 1980)

Plain-English summary

The United Mine Workers of America asked the Commission to stay the effect of its decisions in three cases involving Helen Mining, Kentland-Elkhorn Coal, and Allied Chemical while courts reviewed those decisions. The Commission denied the motion without explaining its reasons in the order. In a separate concurrence, Commissioner Backley said the union had not shown irreparable harm in these particular cases and that the Commission could not suspend the precedential force of its decisions generally. The order did not revisit the underlying disputes or assess a penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): No individual mine safety standard is decided in this order.
• Outcome: Motion to stay the effect of three Commission decisions denied; no penalty assessed by this order.
• Key point: The denial left the Commission's prior decisions in effect during judicial review; Commissioner Backley explained his separate reasoning in a concurrence.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. HELEN MINING,
KENTLAND-ELKHORN V. MSHA,
MSHA & SPARKS V. ALLIED CHEMICAL
DDATE:
19800321
TTEXT:

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC
March 21, 1980

SECRETARY OF LABOR
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA).

v. Docket No. PITT 79-11-P

THE HELEN MINING COMPANY

KENTLAND-ELKHORN COAL
CORPORATION
v. Docket No. PIKE 78-399
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
and
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA

SECRETARY OF LABOR
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

on behalf of
ARNOLD J. SPARKS, JR.,

v. Docket No. WEVA 79-148-D
ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION

ORDER

The UMWA has moved for an order staying the effect of Commission decisions in these cases pending judicial review and the matter having come before the Commission and the Commission having examined the proofs
~779
and the motion papers and having considered the same, it is Ordered that the motion be and hereby denied.

Backley, Commissioner, concurring:

While agreeing with my colleagues in denying the motion of the UMWA to stay the effect of our decisions in these cases pending judicial review, I believe some discussion of the UMWA's motion and my basis for denial is in order. The UMWA alleges that there is a strong likelihood that it will prevail on the merits on appeal; that its members will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted; that a stay will not substantially harm other interested parties; and that it would be in the public interest to issue a stay.

The UMWA's claim of irreparable harm to its members is general in nature. The allegations made concern the problems resulting from decreased miner participation in inspections on a nation-wide basis. No part of the UMWA's argument and none of the motion's supporting affidavits speak to the necessity of a stay of the Commission's mandates in the instant cases. Thus, I conclude that there has been no adequate showing of irreparable harm to the UMWA in these cases.

Aside from the inadequacies discussed above, I have serious concern with the nature of the relief that the UMWA has requested. As I read the stay motion and its supporting memorandum, the UMWA does not seek a stay of the Commission's mandate in these particular cases, but instead seeks a stay of the precedential value of the Commission's opinions. This I cannot do. To stay the precedential effect of our decisions would not merely result in the issuance of final Commission decisions contrary to what the Commission has found to be the intent of Congress, but it would be inconsistent with the role assigned to the Commission under the Act. 1/
________
1/ Section 113, Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.A. 801 et seq.
~780
This Commission was established to independently decide questions of law and policy on a uniform, national basis. To temporarily overrule our precedent pending judicial review of our final orders in these three cases would be in derogation of our function. I therefore conclude that, aside from the inadequate showing of irreparable harm in these cases, the UMWA has not established the appropriateness of the relief it seeks.
Richard V. Backley, Commissioner