Occidental Chemical Company

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