FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket WEST 2003-403-DM Decided December 22, 2003 Procedural Judge Richard W. Manning

Secretary of Labor on behalf of Joseph M. Ondreako v. Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.

Secretary of Labor on behalf of Joseph M. Ondreako v. Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. (FMSHRC WEST 2003-403-DM): Temporary reinstatement dissolved

What's the rule today?

This ALJ decision was superseded by the Commission's decision in the same case. Ezel starts from the controlling decision and answers your situation under current law, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2003
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.
ALJ decision, later reviewed by the Commission
This decision was issued by an FMSHRC Administrative Law Judge, but it was not the final word in the case: the Commission directed review, and the Commission's decision is the one citable as precedent.
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 Richard W. Manning had ordered Kennecott Utah Copper to temporarily reinstate Joseph M. Ondreako while MSHA investigated his discrimination allegations. MSHA later determined that the facts did not constitute a violation of section 105(c) and informed the judge that it would not file a discrimination complaint on Ondreako's behalf. The judge therefore dissolved the temporary-reinstatement order under 29 C.F.R. § 2700.45(g).

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(2); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.45(e) and 2700.45(g)
  • Outcome: The temporary-reinstatement order was dissolved after MSHA declined to file a discrimination complaint.
  • Key point: Temporary reinstatement ends when MSHA determines that the investigated facts do not support a Mine Act discrimination complaint.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER CORP. -- December 22, 2003

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1244 SPEER BOULEVARD #280

DENVER, CO 80204-3582

303-844-3577/FAX 303-844-5268

December 22, 2003

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : TEMPORARY REINSTATEMENT
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH : PROCEEDING
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), :
on behalf of JOSEPH M. ONDREAKO, : Docket No. WEST 2003-403-DM
Applicant : MSHA No. RM MD 03-11
:
v. : Bingham Canyon Mine
:
KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER CORP., : Mine I.D. 42-00149
Respondent :

ORDER DISSOLVING ORDER OF TEMPORARY REINSTATEMENT

On October 9, 2003, I ordered Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation to temporarily
reinstate Joseph M. Ondreako pursuant to section 105(c)(2) of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. �815(c)(2) and 29 C.F.R. � 2700.45(e). 25 FMSHRC 612 (Oct.
2003), aff'd 25 FMSHRC 585 (Oct. 2003). Counsel for the Secretary of Labor notified me that
the Secretary "has determined that the facts disclosed during the investigation do not constitute a
violation of section 105(c)." (December 17, 2003, letter of Carolyn T. James, Technical
Compliance and Investigation Office, Mine Safety and Health Administration). As a
consequence, counsel for the Secretary states that the Secretary will not file a complaint of
discrimination on behalf of Mr. Ondreako. Therefore, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 2700.45(g), the
order of temporary reinstatement in this case is DISSOLVED.

Richard W. Manning

Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

John Rainwater, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, P.O. Box 46550,
Denver, CO 80201-6550 (Fax 303-844-1753 and First Class Mail)

James M. Elegante, Esq., Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., P.O. Box 6001, Magna, UT 84044-6001
(Fax 801-569-6807 and First Class Mail)

RWM

Find out what applies today

This decision wasn't the final word: the Commission reviewed the case, and its decision is the one that controls. Ezel starts from the controlling decision and answers your specific situation under current law, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.