Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Allied Products Company (Commission decision, May 5, 1982)

Plain-English summary

A federal appeals court affirmed a finding that Allied Products Company violated three mine safety standards but found the assessed penalties to be an abuse of discretion. The court returned the case for recalculation on the existing record. The Commission sent the penalty issue to the administrative law judge for further proceedings. This order does not identify the three standards or set a replacement penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: Three mine safety standards upheld by the court, not identified in this order.
• Outcome: Penalty issue remanded to the administrative law judge; no new penalty set.
• Key point: The violation findings stood, while the penalty amounts required reconsideration.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. ALLIED PRODUCTS
DDATE:
19820505
TTEXT:
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. May 5, 1982 SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) Docket No. SE 79-46-M v.

ALLIED PRODUCTS COMPANY

ORDER
In Allied Products Co. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, No. 80-7935, 5th Cir. Unit B (February 1, 1982), rehearing den. March 9, 1982, the court affirmed a final order of the Commission finding that Allied Products violated three mandatory safety standards. 2 FMSHRC 2517 (ALJ, Sept. 1980). The court found, however, that the penalties assessed were an abuse of discretion and remanded for further proceedings "with instructions to recalculate the penalties based on the existing record and on considerations outlined in this opinion." The court's mandate was received by the Commission on April 9, 1982. We need not address at this time the court's discussion of the relationship between the Commission's statutory authority to assess penalties (30 U.S.C. $ 820(i)) and the Secretary of Labor's penalty assessment regulations. 30 C.F.R. Part 100. Rather, we leave to the administrative law judge the initial determination of the necessary and appropriate action in light of the court's decision and remand. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the administrative law judge for further proceedings. Richard V. Backley, Commissioner
~851
Distribution
Gilbert E. Johnston
Patricia Clotfelter
Johnston, Barton, Proctor, Swedlaw & Naff 1212 Bank for Savings Building Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Ann Rosenthal Office of the Solicitor U.S. Department of Labor 4015 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, Virginia 22203 Administrative Law Judge William Fauver FMSHRC 5203 Leesburg Pike, lOth Floor Falls Church, Virginia 22041