Secretary of Labor v. Queenstake Resources, USA, Inc.
Secretary of Labor v. Queenstake Resources, USA, Inc. (FMSHRC WEST 2012-1001-M): Paper-clipped assessment reopened
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2013, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Queenstake's new compliance manager missed a proposed assessment because an administrative assistant had paper-clipped it behind another assessment. He discovered the mistake about a week after the 65 penalties became final and promptly notified counsel. After Queenstake clarified that it intended to contest every penalty in the assessment and the Secretary did not oppose, the Commission reopened the matter in the interests of justice and remanded for normal proceedings.
Decision snapshot
- Governing authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28
- Outcome: All 65 final penalties in the assessment were reopened and remanded.
- Key point: A promptly discovered clerical filing mistake may constitute excusable neglect supporting reopening.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-1710
February 14, 2013
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
v.
QUEENSTAKE RESOURCES, USA, INC.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket No. WEST 2012-1001-M
A.C. No. 26-01621-286858
BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Young and Nakamura, 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 June 8, 2012, the Commission received from Queenstake
Resources, USA, Inc. (“Queenstake”) a motion seeking 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).
MSHA’s record indicates that the proposed assessment was delivered on April 26, 2012,
and became a final order of the Commission on May 29, 2012. Queenstake asserts that its new
compliance manager was not aware of this proposed assessment because his administrative
assistant paper clipped it behind another assessment. The compliance manager discovered his
mistake and notified counsel on June 5, 2012. The Secretary does not oppose the request to
reopen, but notes that Queenstake did not indicate which penalties it seeks to reopen. In
response, Queenstake clarified that it wishes to contest all 65 penalties contained in A.C. #
000286858.
Having reviewed Queenstake’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of
justice, we hereby reopen this matter and remand it to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for
further proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R.
Part 2700. Accordingly, consistent with Rule 28, the Secretary shall file a petition for assessment
of penalty within 45 days of the date of this order. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.
/s/ Mary Lu Jordan
Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner
/s/ Michael G. Young
Michael G. Young, Commissioner
/s/ Patrick K. Nakamura
Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner
Distribution:
Anne D. Harrington, Esq.
Patton Boggs, LLP
1801 California Street
Suite 4900
Denver, CO 80202
W. Christian Schumann, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220
Arlington, VA 22209-2296
Melanie Garris
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
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 520N
Washington, D.C. 20004-1710
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 2013. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.