Black Pine Mining Company (ALJ decision, March 27, 1990)
Black Pine Mining Company (FMSHRC WEST 89-79-D): Settlement approved and discrimination proceeding dismissed
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1990 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Secretary of Labor brought a discrimination proceeding on behalf of Jack Winninghoff under section 105(c) of the Mine Act. Judge August F. Cetti approved the parties' settlement, which required Black Pine Mining Company to pay Winninghoff $14,000 for all claims, including lost wages. The Secretary withdrew the complaint and civil penalty request, and the proceeding was dismissed with prejudice subject to full compliance with the settlement.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standards: 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(c) and 820(i)
- Outcome: The settlement was approved, the $14,000 payment was ordered, and the proceeding was dismissed with prejudice after compliance.
- Key point: The judge approved a settlement resolving the discrimination claims and requiring a lump-sum payment to the complainant.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. BLACK PINE MINING
DDATE:
19900327
TTEXT:
Page 2
~570
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.) Office of Administrative Law Judges
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. WEST 89-79-D
ON BEHALF OF
JACK WINNINGHOFF,
Black Pine Mine
COMPLAINANT
v.
BLACK PINE MINING COMPANY,
RESPONDENT
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Before: Judge Cetti
This proceeding was brought by the Secretary of Labor on behalf of Jack Winninghoff, under 105(c)(2) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq., for certain corrective relief to undo the effects of alleged discrimination against him, and for a civil penalty for an alleged violation of 105(c) of the Act.
The parties have moved for an order approving their proposed settlement, ordering compliance with its terms and for dismissal of this proceeding. I have considered the representations and documentation submitted and I conclude that the proffered settlement is consistent with the criteria in 105(c) and 110(i) of the Act.
ORDER
WHEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The motion for approval of the settlement is GRANTED.
2. Respondent, Secretary and Complainant shall comply with all the terms of the settlement agreement.
3. The Secretary withdraws her complaint and does not seek a civil penalty against respondent for its alleged violation of Section 105(c) of the Act.
Page 3
~571
4. Respondent shall pay Jack Winninghoff the lump sum of $14,000 which sum represents payment of all claims, including lost wages.
5. Subject to full compliance with the agreement, the complaints of the Secretary and Jack Winninghoff will be considered withdrawn and this proceeding is DISMISSED with prejudice.
August F. Cetti
Administrative Law Judge
What applies to your situation today?
This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, 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