United Steel Workers Local No. 5114, on behalf of Miners v. Hecla Limited (ALJ decision, January 5, 2015)

United Steel Workers Local No. 5114, on behalf of Miners v. Hecla Limited (FMSHRC WEST 2012-466-CM): Partial-summary order corrected to reflect citation settlement

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
WEST 2012-466-CM
Decided
January 5, 2015
Presiding judge
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Checked against source
2026-08-02

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This ALJ decision was superseded by the Commission's decision in the same case.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 2015
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 amended a footnote in his December 23, 2014 partial-summary-decision order concerning compensation for Lucky Friday Mine workers. The earlier footnote quoted Citation No. 8565565 without noting that the parties had settled the citation and deleted one inaccurate sentence. The correction explains that the mine superintendent had referred to closure points, not stress gauges, when discussing why readings could not be taken. The amendment changed the description of the settled citation but did not itself resolve the miners' compensation claim.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. §§ 813(k) and 821
  • Outcome: Footnote 10 of the December 23, 2014 partial-summary-decision order was amended to reflect a sentence deleted through settlement.
  • Key point: An interim ruling may be corrected to prevent an inaccurate, previously deleted citation allegation from remaining in the adjudicative record.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

721 19TH
STREET, SUITE 443

DENVER, CO 80202-2536

TELEPHONE:
303-844-3577 / FAX: 303-844-5268

January 5, 2015

UNITED
STEELWORKERS LOCAL NO. 5114, ON BEHALF OF MINERS,

Applicant

v.

HECLA
LIMITED,

Respondent

COMPENSATION
PROCEEDING

Docket
No. WEST 2012-466-CM

Lucky
Friday Mine

Mine
ID 10-00088

ORDER AMENDING
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,

HECLA LIMITED’S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY DECISION

On
December 23, 2014, I issued an Order Granting, in part, Hecla Limited’s Motion for Partial Summary Decision in this case. 36 FMSHRC_____. In footnote 10 on page 6 of that order, I set forth the language in the body of Citation No. 8565565 that was issued to Hecla on December 21, 2011. On page 4 of my order, I noted that Hecla and the Secretary of Labor settled that citation. I approved the settlement of this citation by order dated August 6, 2014.

On
December 30, 2014, Hecla filed an unopposed motion requesting that I clarify that, as part of the settlement, the Secretary agreed to delete a sentence from the body of Citation No. 8565565. In the motion to approve settlement of that citation in WEST 2013-781-M-A, the Secretary stated that the parties agreed to strike “the following sentence from the narrative because it is inaccurate: ‘The Mine Superintendent stated that the readings could not be taken because the steel liner was installed over the [pressure] gauges and the gauges could not be read.’ The management agent was referring to the closure points, not the stress gauges.” (Motion to Approve Settlement at 2). I approved the deletion of this sentence in my decision approving settlement.

For
good cause shown, Hecla’s unopposed motion to amend my December 23, 2014 order is GRANTED. Footnote 10 on page 6 of that order is AMENDED to add the following paragraph at the end of the footnote:

As part of the settlement of this
citation, the Secretary agreed to delete the following sentence from the citation because it is inaccurate: “The Mine Superintendent stated that the readings could not be taken because the steel liner was installed over the gauges and the gauges could not be read.”

/s/ Richard W. Manning

Richard W. Manning

Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Laura
E. Beverage, Esq., and Karen Johnston, Jackson Kelly PLLC, 1099 18th St., Suite 2150, Denver, CO 80202

Susan
J. Eckert, Esq., Santarella & Eckert, LLC, 7050 Puma Trail, Littleton, CO 80125

RWM

What controls your case today?

The Commission reviewed this case, and its decision is the one that controls. Ezel starts there and answers your situation under current law, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace