Occidental Chemical Company (ALJ decision, December 30, 1989)

Plain-English summary

Richard W. Haviland brought a discrimination proceeding against Occidental Chemical Company concerning his discharge from employment at the Swift Creek Mine. The Secretary moved to withdraw the complaint after the parties reached a settlement that provided for compensation, restored fringe benefits, reinstatement, reimbursement of covered medical claims, and expungement of the discharge from his personnel records. The intervening union disputed whether the collective bargaining agreement allowed reinstatement to the specific Combination Analyst Repairman position, but Haviland stated that he still wanted to proceed with the settlement. Judge James A. Broderick found the settlement in Haviland's best interest and consistent with the purposes of the Act. The motion to withdraw was granted and the proceedings were dismissed.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): None stated in the decision
• Outcome: The motion to withdraw was granted and the discrimination proceedings were dismissed after settlement.
• Key point: The Judge approved withdrawal after considering the settlement terms, the union's position, and the complainant's stated desire to proceed.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL
DDATE:
19891230
TTEXT:

Page 2

~2215
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.) Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. SE 87-44-DM
ON BEHALF OF
RICHARD W. HAVILAND,
Docket No. SE 87-89-DM
COMPLAINANT
Swift Creek Mine v.

OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

AND

INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION,
LOCAL NO. 784,
INTERVENOR

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Broderick

On December 2, 1987, the Secretary filed a motion to withdraw its complaint in this case on the grounds that Complainant and Respondent reached a settlement in this matter according to which Richard Haviland is to receive a lump sum payment in compensation for the period June 30, 1986 to March 9, 1987, to be restored to all fringe benefits of his employment, to be reinstated to the position of Combination Analyst Repairman, to be reimbursed for covered medical claims accruing during the period June 30, 1986 to March 9, 1987, and to have his personnel records expunged of the complained-of discharge. On December 9, 1987, the Intervenor replied to the motion and stated that under the collective bargaining contract, Mr. Haviland would not be entitled to be reinstated in the position of Combination Analyst Repairman.

On December 14, 1987, the matter was discussed in a conference call with counsel for the Secretary and Respondent and Representatives of the Intervenor. The position of the Intervenor Union is that Haviland can claim the right to

Page 3

~2216
be reinstated to a position other than that of Analyst Repairman, approximately the same rate of pay. At my request Mr. Haviland submitted a statement, filed December 23, 1987, in which he indicated that he was aware of the position of the Union, but nevertheless desired to withdraw his complaint in accordance with the settlement agreement.

I have considered the motion and related filings and conclude that the settlement is in the best interest of the Complainant, and in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Therefore, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and these proceedings are DISMISSED.

James A. Broderick
Administrative Law Judge