Gene Estella v. Newmont USA Limited (Commission decision, January 26, 2017)

Plain-English summary

A Commission judge found that Newmont USA discriminated against miner Gene Estella and directed the parties to address the remedies still due. Newmont filed a protective petition asking the Commission to review the discrimination finding before the monetary relief was determined. The Commission held that a discrimination decision is not final and appealable until the judge awards all relief owed to the complainant. Because the judge had retained jurisdiction over remedies, the Commission denied the petition for review.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(c)(3) and 823(d)(2)
• Outcome: Newmont's protective petition for discretionary review was denied as premature.
• Key point: A discrimination liability ruling is not final for Commission review while the judge still must determine remedies.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20004-1710

GENE ESTELLA                                             
 :      

:      

v.                                                           
 :                   Docket No. WEST 2016-31-DM

:

NEWMONT USA LIMITED                           :

BEFORE: Althen, Acting Chairman; Jordan, Young, and Cohen, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This discrimination proceeding arises under section 105(c)(3) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (“Mine Act”), 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(3) (2012). On December 22, 2016, Administrative Law Judge William B. Moran issued a decision finding that Newmont USA Limited (“Newmont”) discriminated against miner Gene Estella in violation of section 105(c) of the Mine Act. The Judge further ordered the parties to submit an agreed settlement or the parties’ positions regarding remedies for Estella within 30 days of his decision. On January 23, 2017, Newmont filed a Protective Petition for Discretionary Review of the Judge’s decision.

Section 113(d) of the Mine Act allows for review of an administrative law judge’s final decision in a proceeding under the Mine Act. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2). The Commission has held that a Judge’s decision finding a violation of section 105(c) is not final until the Judge has awarded all relief due to the complainant. See Sec’y of Labor obo Shemwell v. Armstrong Coal Co. , 35 FMSHRC 2056, 2057 (July 2013). In his decision in this case, Judge Moran explicitly retained jurisdiction of this matter to determine the monetary remedy for Estella. Accordingly, we determine that the Judge’s decision has not become final and appealable.

For the reasons set forth above, Newmont’s Protective Petition for Discretionary Review is denied.

/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