Secretary of Labor v. Taft Production Company (Commission decision, October 8, 2009)

Plain-English summary

Taft said it had no record of receiving a proposed assessment and later paid the penalties by mistake after receiving an outstanding-balance notice. The Secretary did not oppose reopening but produced a FedEx record showing delivery to the operator and a signature by S. Brandon. The Commission remanded the matter for a judge to determine whether Taft actually received the assessment. If it did, the judge was to decide whether mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect justified the missed contest deadline.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The reopening request was remanded for findings on receipt and good cause.
• Key point: When company records and carrier tracking conflict, reopening depends on factfinding about delivery and the reason for the missed deadline.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

October 8, 2009

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

TAFT PRODUCTION COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEST 2009-567-M

A.C. No. 04-02964-161991

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, and Cohen, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On February 27, 2009, the Commission received from Taft Production Company (“Taft”) a request to reopen a penalty assessment that had become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

Under section 105(a) of the Mine Act, an operator who wishes to contest a proposed penalty must notify the Secretary of Labor no later than 30 days after receiving the proposed penalty assessment. If the operator fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

We have held, however, that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessments that have become final Commission orders under section 105(a). Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993) (“JWR”). In evaluating requests to reopen final section 105(a) orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which, for example, a party could be entitled to relief from a final order of the Commission on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) (“the Commission and its Judges shall be guided so far as practicable by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); JWR, 15 FMSHRC at 787. We have also observed that default is a harsh remedy and that, if the defaulting party can make a showing of good cause for a failure to timely respond, the case may be reopened and appropriate proceedings on the merits permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

Proposed Assessment No. 000161991 was issued by MSHA on September 9, 2008. Taft asserts that it has no record of having receiving the proposed assessment, and paid the proposed penalties in error when it received a notice of “outstanding balance” on another proposed assessment after Assessment No. 000161991 had become a final order.

The Secretary states that she does not oppose the reopening of the proposed penalty assessment. However, she produced a FedEx Tracking Report indicating that the penalty assessment was received by the operator on September 15, 2008, and signed for by S. Brandon.

Having reviewed Taft’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Taft’s failure to timely contest the penalties and whether relief from the final order should be granted. The Chief Administrative Law Judge should determine whether the operator actually received the proposed assessment on September 15, 2008 and, if so, whether the operator’s failure to contest the assessment resulted from mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

If it is determined that relief from the final order is appropriate, this case shall proceed pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Larry R. Evans

Corporate Safety Mngr.

Taft Production Co.

P.O. Box 380

Georgia Hwy., 3 North

Ochlocknee, GA 31773

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Myra James, Chief

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA

U.S. Dept. of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-3939

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001-2021