Secretary of Labor v. Metzger Removal, Inc. (Commission decision, March 31, 2017)

Plain-English summary

Metzger Removal tried to contest a penalty assessment, but two citations were not registered as contested because the company mistakenly believed they were included in another assessment. The error later prevented an administrative law judge from approving settlement of those citations. The Secretary did not oppose reopening but urged the operator to improve its contest procedures. The Commission found an inadvertent mistake by an inexperienced self-represented operator, reopened the duplicate dockets in the interest of justice, and remanded them for ordinary penalty proceedings. It also consolidated the two dockets because both concerned the same assessment.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.12 and 2700.28
• Outcome: The two final assessment matters were reopened, consolidated, and remanded for penalty proceedings.
• Key point: An inexperienced pro se operator's documented assessment mix-up can constitute an excusable inadvertent mistake supporting reopening.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
DC 20004-1710

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH   

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA)        

v.

METZGER
REMOVAL, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. SE 2016-207-M

A.C.
No. 31-00057-395250

Docket
No. SE 2016-208-M

A.C.
No. 31-00057-395250

BEFORE:  Althen,
Acting 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. (2012) (“Mine Act”). On April 28, 2016, the Commission received from Metzger Removal, Inc. (“Metzger”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment [1] 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).

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 October 26, 2015, and became a final order of the Commission on November 25, 2015. The Secretary’s records further reflect that a delinquency notice was mailed on January 11, 2016.

Metzger asserts that it attempted to timely
contest the assessment, but MSHA did not register two of the citations as having been contested. Metzger further states that that as a result of this situation, when a settlement motion was submitted, a Commission Administrative Law Judge did not approve the settlement for the two uncontested citations. The Secretary explains that the Metzger mistakenly believed that the citations involved in this assessment were included in another assessment, which Metzger did timely contest. The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen, but urges the operator to take steps to ensure that future penalty contests are timely filed.

Having
reviewed Metzger’s request and the Secretary’s
response, we find that the failure to contest the two citations herein was an inadvertent mistake by an inexperienced pro se operator. In the interest of justice, we hereby reopen these matters and remand them 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/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Acting Chairman

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

/s/ Michael G. Young

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

/s/ Robert F. Cohen, Jr.

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Steven
D. Weber

Parker
Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Three
Wells Fargo Center

401
South Tryon Street, Suite 3000

Charlotte,
NC 28202

W.
Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S.
Department of Labor

201
12th St. South, Suite 500

Arlington,
VA 22202-5450

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal
Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

1331
Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Suite 520N

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

Melanie
Garris

Office
of Civil Penalty Compliance

Mine
Safety and Health Administration

U.S.
Department of Labor

201
12th St. South, Suite 500

Arlington,
VA 22202-5450

[1] Two dockets
were created for assessment number 000395250—Docket Nos. SE 2016-207-M and SE 2016-208-M. Because they both deal with the same assessment, they should be considered duplicate dockets and resolved in tandem. Accordingly, we hereby consolidate docket numbers SE 2016-207-M and SE 2016-208-M . 29 C.F.R. § 2700.12.