Secretary of Labor v. Coal-Mac, LLC

Plain-English summary

Coal-Mac sought relief from default orders in five penalty cases after failing to answer the Secretary's petitions and later show-cause orders. It said only that its safety manager was unfamiliar with the contest process and made errors. The Commission found that explanation too general because it omitted the dates, people, and specific failures needed to justify relief. It also found that assigning the work to an inadequately trained manager indicated an unreliable internal process. The Commission denied all five reopening requests with prejudice.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. §§ 823(d)(1) and 823(d)(2)(A)(i)
• Outcome: Reopening of the five defaulted proceedings was denied with prejudice.
• Key point: An operator must train personnel handling contests and provide a detailed account of any failure that leads to default.

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.

COAL-MAC
LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. WEVA 2023-0154

A.C.
No. 46-08249-569568

Docket
No. WEVA 2023-0155

A.C.
No. 46-08984-569574

Docket
No. WEVA 2023-0156

A.C.
No. 46-09075-569575

Docket
No. WEVA 2023-0192

A.C.
No. 46-08918-571114

Docket
No. WEVA 2023-0196

A.C.
No. 46-08249-571110

BEFORE:
Jordan, Chair; Althen, Rajkovich, and Baker, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

        These

matters arise under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §
801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On August 24, 2023, the Commission received
from Coal-Mac, LLC (“Coal-Mac”) a motion seeking to reopen five penalty
assessment proceedings and relieve it from the Default Orders entered against
it. [1]

In each of the captioned proceedings, the
Chief Administrative Law Judge issued an Order to Show Cause in response to
Coal-Mac’s perceived failure to answer the Secretary of Labor’s Petition for
Assessment of Civil Penalty. The Secretary filed the relevant petitions on
March 16 (Docket Nos. WEVA 2023-0154, WEVA 2023-0155, WEVA 2023-0156), March 30
(WEVA 2023-0192) and April 4, 2023 (WEVA 2023-0196). The Chief Judge issued
Orders to Show Cause on May 16, May 30 and June 5, 2023, respectively, which
were deemed Default Orders on June 16, June 30 and July 6, 2023, when it
appeared that the operator had not filed an answer within 30 days.

Coal-Mac asserts, without further detail,
that the captioned proceedings are in default because its Safety Manager was unfamiliar
with the contest process and made mistakes. The Secretary opposes the request
to reopen. The Secretary argues that the claim of “error” is insufficiently
detailed to justify reopening, and that the Safety Manager’s lack of familiarity
with the contest process indicates inadequate internal procedures. The
Secretary also claims the proceedings are moot because the relevant penalties
have all since been paid. Finally, the Secretary argues that the operator
failed to identify facts that, if proven on reopening, would constitute a
meritorious defense.

        The

Judge’s jurisdiction in this matter terminated when the default occurred. 29
C.F.R. § 2700.69(b). Under the Mine Act and the Commission’s procedural rules,
relief from a Judge’s decision may be sought by filing a petition for
discretionary review within 30 days of its issuance. 30 U.S.C. §
823(d)(2)(A)(i); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.70(a). If the Commission does not direct
review within 40 days of a decision’s issuance, it becomes a final decision of
the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). Consequently, the Judge’s order here has
become a final decision of the Commission.

        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”); Jim
Walter Res., Inc. , 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993). 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 will be permitted. See Coal Prep.
Servs., Inc. , 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

However, we emphasize that the party
seeking to reopen a final penalty bears the burden of showing that it is
entitled to such relief, through a detailed explanation of its failure to
timely respond. Revelation Energy, LLC , 40 FMSHRC 375, 375-76 (Mar.
2018) . General assertions or conclusory
statements are insufficient. Southwest Rock Prod.,
Inc. , 45 FMSHRC __, No. WEST 2021-0275
(Aug. 30, 2023). At a minimum, the applicant must provide all known
details, including relevant dates and persons involved, and a clear explanation
that accounts, to the best of the operator’s knowledge, for the failure to
submit a timely response. Higgins Stone Co. , 32 FMSHRC 33, 34 (Jan. 2010). Here, Coal-Mac
provides only a cursory explanation for its failure to respond to the Secretary’s
Petition and Chief Judge’s Order, simply stating that the safety manager was
unfamiliar with the contest process and that the proceedings defaulted due to his
“error.” We find that Coal-Mac has failed to meet its burden of showing that it
is entitled to relief.

We have also held that operators are
responsible for properly training all personnel who handle proposed
assessments, and that failure to properly train such employees indicates an
inadequate or unreliable internal processing system. Cumberland Contura, LLC ,
40 FMSHRC 1129, 1130 (Aug. 2018); Rogers Group, Inc. , 39 FMSHRC 1551,
1554 (Aug. 2017); Kentucky Fuel Corp. , 38 FMSHRC 632, 634 (Apr. 2016). The
Commission has made it clear that, where an operator fails to properly contest
an assessment due to an inadequate or unreliable system, the operator has not
established grounds for reopening. Oak Grove Res., LLC , 33 FMSHRC 103,
104 (Feb. 2011); Double Bonus Coal Co. , 32 FMSHRC 1155, 1156
(Sept. 2010); Highland Mining Co. , 31 FMSHRC 1313, 1315 (Nov.
2009). Here, Coal-Mac asserts that its safety manager erred because he was new
to contesting assessments and lacked the proper knowledge. [2]
This strongly suggests that the safety manager did not receive adequate
training prior to being placed in charge of this task.

Having
reviewed Coal-Mac’s request and the Secretary’s
response, we conclude that the operator failed to establish good cause
for reopening the captioned proceedings. Coal-Mac’s motion to reopen provides
no explanation for its failure to timely answer the Petition or respond to the
Show Cause Order beyond a general statement of “error.” We also find
indications of an inadequate internal processing system. Accordingly,
Coal-Mac’s request to reopen is denied with prejudice.

/s/
Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan,
Chai

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Commissioner

/s/ Timothy J. Baker

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner

Distribution:

Adam
Gross

Safety
Manager

Coal-Mac
LLC

1245
22 Mine Road

Holden,
WV 25625

[email protected]

Nicholas
Smallwood

Safety
Manager

Coal-Mac
LLC

P.O.
Box 1050

Holden,
WV 25625-1050

April
Nelson, Esq.

Associate
Solicitor

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S.
Department of Labor

Division
of Mine Safety and Health

201
12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington,
VA 22202

[email protected]

Emily
Toler Scott, Esq.

Counsel
for Appellate Litigation

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S.
Department of Labor

Division
of Mine Safety and Health

201
12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington,
VA 22202

[email protected]

Melanie
Garris

USDOL/MSHA,
OAASEI/CPCO

201
12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington,
VA 22202

[email protected]

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glynn F. Voisin

Federal
Mine Safety Health Review Commission

1331
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

[1] For the limited
purpose of addressing these motions to reopen, we hereby grant the Secretary’s
motion to consolidate the captioned docket numbers involving similar procedural
issues. 29 C.F.R. §2700.12.

[2] The Secretary questions
the validity of Coal-Mac’s claim of inexperience, noting the operator’s size
and its history of successfully navigating the contest process. While we do not
question the Safety Manager’s statement that he lacked knowledge
regarding the contest process, we note that the operator (as a whole) clearly
has experience with the process and reiterate that operators bear the
responsibility of training their personnel.