Emery Mining Corporation (ALJ decision, May 7, 1986)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary pursued a discrimination complaint against Emery Mining Corporation on behalf of Mark Adams and other people who had obtained new-miner training before Emery employed them. A related complaint in docket WEST 80-489-D(A) had led to a Commission ruling for the complainants, but the Tenth Circuit declined to enforce that order because they were not yet miners or Emery employees during the training. The parties had agreed that the court's ruling would determine this separate case. Judge John J. Morris therefore granted Emery's summary-judgment motion and dismissed the complaint. This outcome is classified as other because the ruling resolves a discrimination claim rather than contested safety citations.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: Mine Act sections 105(c) and 115, 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(c) and 825.
• Outcome: Summary judgment granted for Emery; discrimination complaint dismissed.
• Key point: The parties stipulated that the appellate ruling in the related training-pay case would control this proceeding.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. EMERY MINING
DDATE:
19860507
TTEXT:
~804

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. WEST 80-489-D(B)
ON BEHALF OF
MARK ADAMS, ET AL,
Deseret Mine
COMPLAINANTS
v.

EMERY MINING CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Appearances: James H. Barkley, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Denver, Colorado, for Complainants; Thomas C. Means, Esq., Crowell & Moring, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before: Judge Morris

This case arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and it involves the interpretation of sections 115 and 105(c) of the Act.

After a hearing before the undersigned the Secretary was granted leave to amend his complaint to add additional complainants. The undersigned severed the amended complaint and designated all subsequent matters relating to the amended petition as "Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration on Behalf of Mark Adams, et al, Complainants, v. Emery Mining Corporation, Respondent, Docket No. WEST 80Ä489ÄD(B)." In the interim Docket No. WEST 80Ä489ÄD(A) was appealed to the Commission.

After considering the issues, the Commission ruled that Emery violated section 105(c) of the Act when, after hiring the complainants as new miners, it nevertheless refused to compensate them for 32 hours of training. The miners had to obtain such training because of respondent's hiring practices, 5 FMSHRC 1391 (1983).

Subsequently, respondent appealed the Commission decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit where it was docketed as case number 83Ä2017. In addition, the parties stipulated that the instant case would be determined by the ruling of the appellate court. In view of the stipulation of the parties, the undersigned stayed further proceedings in the captioned case pending a ruling from the appellate court.
~805
On January 31, 1986, the Court issued its decision. The Court held that the Commission and its administrative law judge erred when they found that Emery violated the Act by refusing to pay its newly hired employees for back wages, tuition and related expenses they had incurred in receiving 32 hours of training before being employed by respondent. Specifically, the Court ruled that none of the complainants were "miners" under the Act or employed by respondent at the time they took their training. Further, it was the view of the Court that the statute was clear on its face. In sum, the Court declined to enforce the Commission order.

Respondent thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment on the captioned case. The motion is within the stipulation of the parties.

Thereafter the undersigned dissolved the stay of the instant proceedings. The Secretary, in his response to the motion for summary judgment, concurs that Emery's motion should be granted.

On the basis of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Docket No. 83Ä2017, the pleadings and the stipulation of the parties, I enter the following:

ORDER

1. Respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted.

2. The discrimination complaint is dismissed.

John J. Morris
Administrative Law Judge