Secretary of Labor v. Meadows Stone & Paving, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Meadows Stone asked the Commission to reopen a penalty assessment that became final after MSHA did not receive its contest. The company said it mailed the contest on time, but the Secretary's records showed it went with the penalty check to MSHA's St. Louis payment address instead of the Civil Penalty Compliance Office. The Secretary did not oppose reopening but urged the company to use the address stated in the assessment. The Commission found that the delay resulted from a mailing mistake, reopened the assessment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The final assessment was reopened and remanded for further proceedings.
• Key point: Mailing a contest to MSHA's payment address instead of its contest-processing office was an excusable mistake in this case.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
DC 20004-1710

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH     

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA)          

v.

MEADOWS
STONE & PAVING, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. WEVA 2020-0057-M

A.C.
No. 46-04694-486291

BEFORE:  Rajkovich,
Chairman; Althen and Traynor, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE
COMMISSION:

This
matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §
801 et seq. (2012) (“Mine Act”). On October 18, 2019, the Commission received
from Meadows Stone & Paving, Inc. (“Meadows Stone”) a motion seeking to
reopen a penalty assessment that had become a final order of the Commission
pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

Under
section 105(a) of the Mine Act, an operator who wishes to contest a proposed
penalty must notify the Secretary of Labor no later than 30 days after
receiving the proposed penalty assessment. If the operator fails to notify the
Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the
Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

We
have held, however, that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested
assessments that have become final Commission orders under section 105(a). Jim
Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993) (“ JWR ”). In
evaluating requests to reopen final orders, the Commission has found guidance
in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which the
Commission may relieve a party from a final order of the Commission on the
basis of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or other reason justifying
relief. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) (“the Commission and its Judges shall
be guided so far as practicable by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); JWR ,
15 FMSHRC at 787. We have also observed that default is a harsh remedy and
that, if the defaulting party can make a showing of good cause for a failure to timely respond, the case may be
reopened and appropriate proceedings on the merits permitted. See Coal Prep.
Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

Records
of the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”)
indicate that the proposed assessment was delivered on April 10, 2019, and
became a final order of the Commission on May 10, 2019.  Meadows Stone asserts
that the notice of contest was timely mailed on April 24, 2019, but was not
received by MSHA’s Civil Penalty and Compliance Office in Arlington, Virginia. A
check for payment of the uncontested penalties was mailed at the same time to
MSHA’s address for payment processing in St. Louis, Missouri. The Secretary’s
records indicate that the notice of contest was improperly mailed with the
check to the St. Louis address, rather than the Civil Penalty and Compliance
Office. [1]
The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen, but urges the operator to
take steps to ensure that future penalty contests are timely filed, and are sent
to MSHA’s Civil Penalty Compliance Office at the address stated in the proposed
penalty assessment.

Having reviewed Meadows Stone’s motion
and the Secretary’s response, we find that the delay in this instance arose
from a mistake in mailing the notice of contest to the wrong address.

In
the interest of justice, we hereby reopen this matter and remand it to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings
pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part
2700. Accordingly, consistent with Rule 28, the Secretary shall file a
petition for assessment of penalty within 45 days of the date of this order. See
29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco
M. Rajkovich, Jr., Chairman

/s/
William I. Althen

William
I. Althen, Commissioner

/s/
Arthur R. Traynor, III

Arthur R. Traynor, III, Commissioner

Distribution:

Bernard
R. Mauser

[email protected]

Emily
Scott, Esq.

Office
of the Solicitor

[email protected]

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glenn Voisin

Federal
Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

[email protected]

Melanie
Garris

Office
of Civil Penalty Compliance

Mine
Safety and Health Administration

[email protected]

[1] Meadows Stone
counters that MSHA must have misplaced the penalty contest, asserting that it
could not have been improperly mailed to the St. Louis address because the
operator did not have that address until September. However, the operator
successfully mailed the check to the St. Louis address in April, at the same
time the notice of contest was mailed.