Eastern Associated Coal Corp.

Plain-English summary

The Secretary of Labor asked Judge Michael E. Zielinski to enforce an earlier order requiring Eastern Associated Coal Corp. to reinstate Gary Dean Munson. Munson had instead accepted economic reinstatement, receiving pay and benefits without returning to work, and later asked to return after changing his mind. The judge found that the motion did not provide enough authority or a legal framework for deciding whether that agreement could be rescinded, whether the Commission had jurisdiction over the contractual dispute, or whether enforcement should be sought in court. He denied the motion without prejudice, allowing the Secretary to refile it with supporting authority or seek enforcement in federal court.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 816(b) and 30 U.S.C. § 818(a)
• Outcome: The motion to enforce temporary reinstatement was denied without prejudice.
• Key point: A motion seeking enforcement must address the governing authority and unresolved jurisdictional and contractual issues.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

                        OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
                                 2 SKYLINE, Suite 1000
                                 5203 LEESBURG PIKE
                            FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041



                                      June 27, 2001

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : TEMPORARY REINSTATEMENT
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH : PROCEEDING
ADMINISTRATION, on behalf of :
GARY DEAN MUNSON : Docket No. WEVA 2000-40-D
Complainant : MORG-CD-2000-01
:
v. : Federal No. 2
: Mine ID 46-01456
EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. :
Respondent :

            ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE ORDER OF
           TEMPORARY REINSTATEMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

    Presently before me is a motion by the Secretary for entry of an order enforcing the order

of temporary reinstatement previously entered in this case. Respondent has opposed the motion.
For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied without prejudice.

     On March 10, 2000, following a hearing, a Decision and Order of Temporary

Reinstatement was entered, directing Respondent, Eastern Associated Coal Corporation (EACC)
to “REINSTATE Mr. Munson to the position he held immediately prior to December 6, 1999,
or to a similar position, at the same rate of pay and benefits, IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIPT
OF THIS DECISION.” Munson, however, did not return to work at EACC, because he agreed
to economic, as opposed to actual, reinstatement, i.e., Munson accepted an offer from EACC to
provide pay and benefits without his physically reporting for work. The parties did not notify the
Commission of the economic reinstatement agreement and the March 10, 2000, decision and
order remains outstanding.

    A few months later, Munson changed his mind about economic reinstatement and

requested that he be allowed to return to work. EACC declined his request, taking the position
that Munson should be held to his agreement to accept economic reinstatement. The issue was
raised with the undersigned administrative law judge, but was not resolved, in part because of a
question of jurisdiction. See the order dated September 15, 2000, noting the withdrawal of
Respondent’s motion to stay economic reinstatement. No further action was taken on Munson’s
request until the filing of the instant motion on May 24, 2001. On June 25, 2001, a Decision on
Liability was issued in Commission Docket No. WEVA 2000-58-D, the formal complaint of
discrimination filed on Munson’s behalf with the Commission. It was held that EACC

                                           701

Page 2

discriminated against Munson in violation of the Act and directed the parties to confer on the
relief to be awarded Munson and the amount of an appropriate civil penalty.

    While the Commission has recently determined that an administrative law judge retains

jurisdiction over a temporary reinstatement docket pending final resolution of the formal
complaint of discrimination,1 there are several questions that have not been addressed by the
parties. Accordingly, the present motion will be denied, without prejudice to its refiling with
appropriate supporting authority.

    As noted previously, the March 10, 2000, decision and order remains outstanding. It is

unclear what the Secretary can achieve through the motion to enforce, beyond the presently
existing decision and order directing Munson’s reinstatement. It seems, therefore, that the
Secretary could seek enforcement of that order, either in the appropriate United States Circuit
Court of Appeals pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 816(b) or in a United States District Court pursuant to
30 U.S.C. § 818(a). Unlike an administrative law judge, judges of those courts possess the
contempt power and have the capability of compelling compliance with a final order of the
Commission. Of course, the Secretary would be met with EACC’s defense that Munson agreed
to accept economic reinstatement.

    The Secretary has stated that Munson has rescinded the economic reinstatement

agreement and requested that it be declared “null and void.” However, no authority has been
cited in support of that request, nor has a legal framework for resolving the issues raised by the
motion and EACC’s defense even been identified. Also unaddressed are issues such as whether
the Commission has jurisdiction to resolve what may be a private contractual dispute raised by
EACC’s defense, or whether such issues can or should be resolved in the first instance by the
Commission or a court.

    EACC’s opposition to the motion suffers from similar shortcomings. It argues that the

economic reinstatement agreement fulfills the primary legislative intent of the temporary
reinstatement provision and that Munson should be held to his “binding contractual agreement.”
However, EACC does not address Munson’s purported recission of the agreement and no legal
authority is cited in support of its arguments. EACC likewise did not address the potential
jurisdictional issues identified above.

    In light of the above, moveant has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating entitlement

to the relief requested. Accordingly, the motion will be denied, without prejudice to its being
refiled with appropriate supporting authority. Of course, the Secretary is also free to seek
enforcement of the March 10, 2000, decision and order through the courts. Ultimate disposition
of the merits of his discrimination complaint may also moot the current dispute.

   1
           Sec’y of Labor on behalf of York v. BR&D Enterprises, Inc., 23 FMSHRC 386

(Apr. 2001).

                                           702

Page 3

                                      ORDER

   The Secretary’s Motion to Enforce Order of Temporary Reinstatement is Denied, without

prejudice.

                                       Michael E. Zielinski
                                       Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Douglas N. White, Esq. Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 4015 Wilson
Boulevard, Suite 516, Arlington, VA 22203 (Certified Mail)

Rebecca O. Zuleski, Esq., Furbee, Amos, Webb & Critchfield, PLLC, 5000 Hampton Center,
Suite 4, Morgantown, WV 26505 (Certified Mail)

/mh

                                         703