Dillingham Construction
Dillingham Construction (FMSHRC SE 95-81-M, SE 95-113-M): $1,200 settlement approved
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1995 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.
Plain-English summary
Dillingham Construction faced civil penalty proceedings involving the Lyman Quarry Mine. The parties reached a settlement at a scheduled hearing, reducing the proposed penalty from $4,800 to $1,200. Judge Avram Weisberger found the settlement appropriate under the Mine Act's penalty criteria and approved it. The company was ordered to pay $600 on May 9, 1995, and $600 on June 9, 1995.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): The order does not identify specific Mine Act safety standards.
- Outcome: The settlement was approved and the total civil penalty was reduced to $1,200.
- Key point: The ALJ approved the negotiated penalty after considering the parties' representations and supporting documentation under Section 110(i) of the Mine Act.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
OFFICE OF A D M INISTRA TIV E LA W JUDGES
2 SK YLINE, 10 th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIK E
FA LLS CHURCH, V IRGINIA 22041
June 2, 1995
SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. SE 95-81-M
Petitioner : A. C. No. 30-00612-05503 X7X
v. :
: Docket No. SE 95-113-M
DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION : A. C. No. 38-00612-05504 X7X
Respondent : : Lyman Quarry Mine
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Appearances: Leslie J. Rodriguez, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U. S. Department of Labor, Atlanta, Georgia, for
the Petitioner;
Mr. Joe Meyer, Dillingham Construction Company,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Respondent.
Before: Judge Weisberger
These cases are before me upon petitions for assessment of
civil penalty under Section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977 (the Act). A hearing was scheduled for May 9,
1995, in Greenville, South Carolina. At the hearing, the Parties\
entered into a settlement agreement, and Petitioner moved to
approve the settlement. A reduction in penalty from $4800 to
$1200 is proposed. I have considered the representations and
documentation submitted in these cases, and I conclude that the
proffered settlement is appropriate under the criteria set forth\
in Section 110(i) of the Act.
Page 2
WHEREFORE, the motion for approval of settlement is GRANTED.
It is ORDERED that respondent pay a penalty of $1200 as follows:
$600 is to be paid on May 9, 1995 and $600 is to be paid on
June 9, 1995.
Avram Weisberger
Administrative Law Judge
Distribution:
Leslie J. Rodriguez, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U. S. Department of Labor, 1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Room 339,
Atlanta, GA 30367 (Certified Mail)
Mr. Joe Meyer, Dillingham Construction Company, 340 Dillingham
Circle, Asheville, NC 28805 (Certified Mail)
dcp
2
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1995, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.