Mark L. Lujan v. Signal Peak Energy, LLC

Plain-English summary

Mark Lujan filed an individual Mine Act discrimination case after MSHA found insufficient evidence to pursue his discharge complaint. While that case awaited decision after a hearing, he separately asked the Commission for temporary reinstatement. Judge David F. Barbour held that section 105(c)(2) authorizes only the Secretary of Labor to apply for temporary reinstatement after finding that a complaint was not frivolously brought. Because a miner cannot file that application on his own behalf, the Judge denied the request and dismissed the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(c)(2) and 815(c)(3)
• Outcome: The miner's temporary-reinstatement application was denied and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Key point: A miner may pursue an individual discrimination action, but only the Secretary may initiate temporary reinstatement under section 105(c)(2).

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY
AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

1331 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Suite 520N

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

TELEPHONE:
202-434-9953 / FAX: 202-434-9949

MARK
L. LUJAN,                                         

Complainant,  

v.

SIGNAL
PEAK ENERGY, LLC,         

Respondent.

TEMPORARY
REINSTATMENT:

Docket
No. WEST 2015-765-D        

MSHA
Case No. DENV-CD 2014-17

Mine
ID: 24-01950

Mine:
Bull Mountain Mine No. 1

ORDER
OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On July 10, 2015, the
Commission received a request for temporary reinstatement from Mark L. Lujan. On
July 20, 2015, the court received the company’s response and motion to dismiss.
The company essentially argues the Commission is without jurisdiction. Because
I agree, I will grant the company’s motion without waiting for Mr. Lujan’s
reply.

Mr. Lujan formerly
worked as a miner for Signal Peak Energy, LLC at the company’s Bull Mountain Mine
No. 1, an underground bituminous coal mine located in south central Montana. Mr.
Lujan contends that he was illegally discharged by the company on June 18,
2013. On September 24, 2014, Mr. Lujan filed a discrimination complaint with
the Secretary of Labor’s (“Secretary”) Mine Safety and Health Administration
(“MSHA”). On November 24, 2014, MSHA sent Mr. Lujan a letter informing him that
it did not find sufficient evidence to establish a violation of section 105(c).
30 U.S.C. § 815(c). Mr. Lujan then filed an “appeal” of MSHA’s determination. The
appeal was docketed by the Commission as a section 105(c)(3)  (30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(3))
discrimination complaint (Docket No. WEST 2015-252-D), and the case was
assigned to the court. Time was provided for Mr. Lujan to obtain counsel, but his
efforts proved unsuccessful. On June 30 and July 1, 2015, a hearing on Mr.
Lujan’s discrimination complaint was held in Denver, Colorado. At the hearing,
the company was represented by counsels and Mr. Lujan represented himself. A
decision on Mr. Lujan’s discrimination complaint is pending. In the meantime,
and as noted above, on July 10, 2015, the Commission received Mr. Lujan’s
request for temporary reinstatement. Mr. Lujan’s request was docketed by the
Commission as a temporary reinstatement proceeding filed pursuant to section
105(c)(2) of the Act. 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(2).

Mr. Lujan’s request
must be denied and the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Section
105 (c)(2) provides for the Secretary, not the affected miner, to bring an
application for temporary reinstatement. 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(2). Section
105(c)(2)states, “[I]f the Secretary finds that such complaint [i.e., the
miner’s complaint to MSHA that he or she has suffered discrimination] was not
frivolously brought, the Commission . . . upon application of the Secretary,
shall order the immediate reinstatement of the miner pending final order on the
complaint.” 30 U.S.C. §815(c)(2) (emphasis added). There is no
comparable provision in section 105(c) or elsewhere in the Act authorizing a
miner to bring such an application on his or her own behalf. [1] Therefore,
because the case is not sanctioned by the Act, I lack the statutory authority
to hear it, and Mr. Lujan’s application must be and is DENIED. The case is
DISMISSED.

/s/ David F.
Barbour

David F. Barbour

Administrative
Law Judge

Distribution: (1st Class Mail)

Christopher G. Peterson, Esq.; Ben Ross,
Esq., Jackson Kelly, PLLC, 1099 18th Street, Suite 2150, Denver, Colorado  80202

Mark L. Lujan, P.O. Box 4733, Grand
Junction, Colorado  81502

[1]  As the Sixth Circuit noted in N.
Fork Coal Co. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 669 Fd.735,
744 (6th Cir. 2015), “[T]emporary reinstatement is not appropriate
when a miner pursues an individual ‘action’ under §815(d)(3).” (Citations
omitted.)