Secretary of Labor v. James L. Deck

Plain-English summary

James Deck did not timely contest an individual civil-penalty assessment under section 110(c), so the assessment became a final Commission order. Deck said the Secretary had agreed during earlier settlement negotiations to withdraw the individual proceeding but mistakenly failed to do so. The Secretary did not dispute that agreement and did not oppose reopening, although the parties disagreed about whether Deck had been told he did not need to file a contest. The Commission reopened the assessment in the interest of justice and remanded it for further proceedings. It also urged parties to place every material settlement term in the written agreement, including any promise not to pursue related individual charges.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.26 through 2700.28; 30 U.S.C. § 820(c)
• Outcome: The final individual penalty assessment was reopened and remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
• Key point: An undisputed agreement to withdraw an individual penalty supported reopening when the assessment was issued because the Secretary failed to carry out that agreement.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20004-1710

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH  

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

JAMES L. DECK

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No.

A.C. No.

SE 2014-322-M

38-00740-342730 A

BEFORE:  Jordan, Chairman; Young, Cohen, Nakamura and
Althen, 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. (2012) (“Mine Act”). On May
29, 2014, the Commission received a motion seeking to reopen a penalty
assessment under section 110(c) of the
Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 820(c), that had become a final order of the Commission.

Under the Commission’s Procedural Rules, an individual charged under section 110(c) has 30
days following receipt of the proposed penalty assessment within which to
notify the Secretary of Labor that he or she wishes to contest the penalty. 29
C.F.R. § 2700.26. If the individual fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed
penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 29 C.F.R. §
2700.27.

We have held, however, 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 orders, the Commission
has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under
which the Commission may relieve a party from a final order of the Commission
on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or other reason
justifying relief. 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).

Records of the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety
and Health Administration (“MSHA”) indicate that the proposed assessment was
delivered on February 8, 2014, and became a final order of the Commission on
March 10, 2014. Deck asserts that as part of earlier settlement negotiations,
the Secretary had agreed to administratively withdraw this 110(c) proceeding.1 The Secretary does not
dispute this. However, the Secretary mistakenly failed to do so, and a proposed
penalty assessment was subsequently issued to Deck in this 110(c) proceeding. Deck
further asserts that the Secretary informed him he did not need to timely
contest the proposed assessment. The Secretary disputes this but does not
oppose the request to reopen, and urges the operator to take steps to ensure
that future penalty contests are timely filed.

Having reviewed
Deck’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interest of justice, we
hereby reopen this matter and remand it to the Chief Administrative Law Judge
for further proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s
Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700. Accordingly, consistent with Rule
28, the Secretary shall file a petition for assessment of penalty within 45
days of the date of this order. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.

/s/
Mary Lu Jordan

Mary
Lu Jordan, Chairman

/s/
Michael G. Young

Michael
G. Young, Commissioner

/s/
Robert F. Cohen, Jr.

Robert
F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

/s/ Patrick K. Nakamura

Patrick
K. Nakamura, Commissioner

/s/ William I.
Althen

William
I. Althen, Commissioner

1The Secretary’s alleged agreement in settlement
negotiations to not pursue section 110(c) charges against Deck does not appear
in the settlement agreement which was tendered to the Judge and approved by
him. See Deck’s Unopposed Motion to Reopen Contest of Civil Penalty
Assessment, Exhibit B (Decision Approving Settlement and Order to Pay issued
April 30, 2014 in Secretary v. Deck Sand Company, Inc., Docket No. SE
2013-201M et al.). However, the Secretary does not dispute Deck’s
assertion, and we accept it as true. In the future, we urge the Secretary and
operators to include all material terms in proposed settlement agreements,
including agreements that section 110(c) charges related to the settled
citations will not be pursued.