Ezel / Agency Decisions / SE 82-55-D

Ray Ward v. Volunteer Mining Corporation (ALJ decision, December 7, 1983)

Ray Ward v. Volunteer Mining Corporation (FMSHRC SE 82-55-D): Discrimination remedy settlement approved

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
SE 82-55-D
Decided
December 7, 1983
Presiding judge
William Fauver
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-21
Cited standards
30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(1)
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1983 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1983
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final ALJ order under the Mine Act's 40-day rule
This order concluded the discrimination case and became final because no Commissioner directed later review within 40 days, under 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Judge William Fauver had previously held that Volunteer Mining Corporation discriminated against Ray Ward in violation of the Mine Act. He left the remedy for the parties to propose. They filed an agreement resolving relief on December 1, 1983. The judge approved the agreement as consistent with his liability decision and concluded the proceeding. This short order does not state the settlement's payment or other terms.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(1).
  • Outcome: Remedy settlement approved; proceeding concluded.
  • Key point: The parties resolved relief after the earlier discrimination finding, but the published order does not give the agreement's terms.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
RAY WARD V. VOLUNTEER MINING
DDATE:
19831207
TTEXT:
~2064

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

RAY WARD,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
Docket No. SE 82-55-D v.
BARB CD 81-38
VOLUNTEER MINING CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT

FINAL ORDER

Before: Judge Fauver

My decision on liability was entered on July 29, 1983, holding that Respondent discriminated against Complainant in violation of section 105(c) (1) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801, et seq., and granting leave to the parties to propose an order of relief.

On December 1, 1983, the parties filed a settlement agreement on relief. This agreement is APPROVED as a just and appropriate settlement consistent with the decision on liability and the purposes of the Act.

WHEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that this proceeding is CONCLUDED.

William Fauver
Administrative Law Judge

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace