Secretary of Labor v. Willits Company, Inc. (Commission decision, January 31, 2017)

Plain-English summary

Willits Company did not timely answer the Secretary's penalty petition, and an unanswered show-cause order became a final default order. Willits said it did not understand how the case had closed because it had been negotiating the penalty with the Solicitor's Office. The Secretary confirmed that negotiations were ongoing and did not oppose reopening, although he warned that the operator should have taken the show-cause order seriously. In the interest of justice, the Commission reopened the proceeding, vacated the default, and remanded for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. §§ 823(d)(1) and 823(d)(2)(A)(i); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b), 2700.69(b), and 2700.70(a)
• Outcome: The final default order was vacated and the penalty case was remanded.
• Key point: Confirmed ongoing negotiations supported reopening even though the operator failed to respond to a clear show-cause order.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
DC 20004-1710

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH   

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA),       

v.

WILLITS
COMPANY, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. WEST 2014-1049-M

A.C.
No. 48-01540-360049

BEFORE: Althen,
Acting Chairman; Jordan, 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. (2012) (“Mine Act”). On August 10, 2015, the Commission received from Willits Company, Inc. (“Willits”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment proceeding and relieve it from the Default Order entered against it.

On
April 30, 2015, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued an Order to Show Cause in response to Willits’s failure to timely answer the Secretary of Labor’s November 7, 2014 Petition for Assessment of Civil Penalty. By its terms, the Order to Show Cause was deemed a Default Order on June 1, 2015, when it appeared that the operator had not filed an answer within 30 days. On July 27, 2015, MSHA mailed a delinquency notice to Willits.

Willits claims not to know how the case
became a final order of the Commission and that it has been negotiating the case with the Solicitor in the Denver Regional Solicitor’s office. The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen, and he confirms that ongoing negotiations have been occurring between the operator and the Solicitor, and that the Solicitor was unaware that the case had been closed for default. The Secretary also notes that Willits filed an answer in another case and has been negotiating it with the Solicitor as well. However, the Secretary notes that his decision not to oppose reopening in this case should not be construed as condoning Willits’s failure to take orders of the Commission seriously, and that the Order to Show Cause clearly alerted the operator that it needed to respond to the order within 30 days.

The
Judge’s jurisdiction in this matter terminated when the default occurred. 29 C.F.R.  § 2700.69(b). Under the Mine Act and the Commission’s procedural rules, relief from a judge’s decision may be sought by filing a petition for discretionary review within 30 days of its issuance. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2)(A)(i); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.70(a). If the Commission does not direct review within 40 days of a decision’s issuance, it becomes a final decision of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). Consequently, the Judge’s order here has become a final decision of the Commission.

In
evaluating requests to reopen final orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which the Commission may relieve a party from a final order of the Commission on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or other reason justifying relief. 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”); Jim Walter Res., Inc. , 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993). 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 will be permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc. , 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

Having reviewed Willits’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interest of justice, we hereby reopen the proceeding and vacate the Default Order. Accordingly, this case is remanded 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.

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Acting Chairman

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

/s/ Michael G. Young

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

/s/ Robert F. Cohen, Jr.

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Robert
C. Willits

President

Willits
Company, Inc.

P.O.
Box 825

Cheyenne,
WY 82003-0825

W.
Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S.
Department of Labor

201
12th St. South, Suite 500

Arlington,
VA 22202-5450

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal
Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

1331
Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Suite 520N

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

Melanie
Garris

Office
of Civil Penalty Compliance

Mine
Safety and Health Administration

U.S.
Department of Labor

201
12th St. South, Suite 500

Arlington,
VA 22202-5450