Old Ben Coal Company (Commission decision, March 16, 1982)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary of Labor and the United Mine Workers of America appealed in four cases arising under the 1969 Coal Act, then both sought dismissal. Old Ben Coal, which had prevailed below, opposed dismissal. The Commission granted the appellants' request because dismissal would not prejudice Old Ben and would conserve administrative resources. It also vacated the order scheduling oral argument, leaving the underlying legal question unresolved.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): None identified in this procedural order.
• Outcome: Four appeals dismissed; oral-argument scheduling order vacated.
• Key point: The only appellants withdrew their appeals, so the Commission closed them without reaching the merits.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA & UMWA V. OLD BEN COAL
DDATE:
19820316
TTEXT:
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. March 16, 1982 SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) Docket Nos. VINC 75-247 VINC 75-249
and
VINC 75-250
VINC 75-251
UNITED MINE WORKERS
IBMA No. 77-42
OF AMERICA

v.

OLD BEN COAL COMPANY

ORDER
The Secretary of Labor has filed a motion requesting dismissal of its appeal in the above-captioned cases, which arose under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, 30 U.S.C. $ 801 et seq. (1976)(amended 1977)("the 1969 Coal Act"). The United Mine Workers of America ("UMWA"), the other appellant in this case, concurs in the Secretary's motion. Old Ben Coal Company has filed a response opposing dismissal. The Secretary and the UMWA are the only appellants, and both seek dismissal. Granting the motion will not prejudice Old Ben as it was the party that prevailed below. Dismissal preserves the scarce administrative resources available to the Commission and to the Secretary. Furthermore, there are provisions in the 1977 Mine Act that are nearly identical to the provisions of the 1969 Coal Act involved in this case, and thus the question raised in these cases will probably arise in future cases before the Commission. 1/ Accordingly, we dismiss the above-captioned cases. Our order scheduling oral argument is also vacated. A.E. Lawson, Commissioner 1/ We need not, and do not, decide that these cases are moot as a matter of law.