Secretary of Labor v. Drummond Company, Inc. (Commission decision, July 9, 2008)

Plain-English summary

Drummond Company sought to reopen a penalty assessment covering two citations it had already contested. The company said it intended to contest the related penalties, but its safety superintendent had assumed additional duties and missed the deadline; the Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission remanded the matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge to determine whether good cause existed and whether relief from the final order should be granted.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b)
• Outcome: The reopening request was remanded for a factual determination of good cause.
• Key point: An employee's added workload may support reopening a missed penalty contest, but the operator must first establish good cause before the Chief Administrative Law Judge.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

July 9, 2008

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. SE 2008-575

A.C. No. 01-02901-137662

BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan, Young, and Cohen, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2000) (“Mine Act”). On April 9, 2008, the Commission received from Drummond Company, Inc. (“Drummond”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment that had become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

Under section 105(a) of the Mine Act, an operator who wishes to contest a proposed penalty must notify the Secretary of Labor no later than 30 days after receiving the proposed penalty assessment. If the operator fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

On January 30, 2008, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued a proposed penalty assessment to Drummond. Drummond asserts that it had previously filed contests of two of the citations contained in the assessment: Citations Nos. 7692121 and 7692122, assigned to Docket Nos. SE 2007-384-R and SE 2007-385-R. Drummond states that it intended to contest the penalties for the two citations but that its safety superintendent had to assume additional duties and was unable to timely contest them. The Secretary states that she does not oppose the reopening of the assessment.

We have held that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessments that have become final Commission orders under section 105(a). Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993) (“JWR”). In evaluating requests to reopen final section 105(a) orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which, for example, a party could be entitled to relief from a final order of the Commission on the basis of inadvertence or mistake. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 2700.1(b) (“the Commission and its Judges shall be guided so far as practicable by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); JWR, 15 FMSHRC at 787. We have also observed that default is a harsh remedy and that, if the defaulting party can make a showing of good cause for a failure to timely respond, the case may be reopened and appropriate proceedings on the merits permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

Having reviewed Drummond’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Drummond’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposal and whether relief from the final order should be granted. If it is determined that such relief is appropriate, this case shall proceed pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.

______

Michael F. Duffy, Chairman

______

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

______

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

______

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution

Noelle Holladay True, Esq.

Rajkovich, Williams, Kilpatrick & True, PLLC.

2333 Alumni Park Plaza, Suite 310

Lexington, KY 40517

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Myra James, Chief

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-3939

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001-2021