Local Union 6025, United Mine Workers of America v. Bishop Coal Co. (ALJ decision, August 7, 1980)

Local Union 6025 v. Bishop Coal Co. (FMSHRC WEVA 80-429-D): Spot inspection pay complaint dismissed

Decision type
ALJ decision
Dockets
WEVA 80-429-D, HOPE CD 80-41, HOPE CD 80-42, HOPE CD 80-43, HOPE CD 80-44, HOPE CD 80-45, HOPE CD 80-46, HOPE CD 80-47, HOPE CD 80-48, HOPE CD 80-49
Decided
August 7, 1980
Presiding judge
Outcome
Other
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-23

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1980 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.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1980
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final ALJ dismissal, not Commission precedent
ALJ decisions are subject to the 40-day finality rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). The official index lists a later 1983 settlement dismissal in this same docket but does not explain the intervening proceedings. This 1980 ruling is not Commission precedent. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Transcribed from a scanned original: FMSHRC released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Local Union 6025 of the United Mine Workers of America filed a discrimination complaint against Bishop Coal Company over pay for miners who accompanied federal inspectors on spot inspections. The union argued that Bishop paid supervisory personnel for these inspections but did not pay employee representatives. Judge Michael A. Lasher, Jr., held that Commission decisions denying pay for miners' representatives during spot inspections controlled the case. He denied the union's request to stay the proceeding, granted Bishop's motion for summary decision, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The ruling decided a pay discrimination complaint on the merits, with no contested safety citation to classify. A later ALJ order in the official index dismissed the same docket after a settlement in 1983; the index does not explain what happened between the two orders.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: Mine Act §§ 103(f) and 105(c), cited in the complaint.
  • Outcome: Discrimination complaint dismissed with prejudice on summary decision; no penalty assessed.
  • Key point: The judge treated prior Commission spot inspection pay rulings as controlling.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

7 AUG 1980

LOCAL UNION 6025, UNITED MINE
: Application for Review of
WORKERS OF AMERICA, : Discrimination Complaint
Applicant :
: Docket No. WEVA 80-429-D Formerly
: No. HOPE CD 80-41;
: HOPE CD 80-42; HOPE CD 80-43
: HOPE CD 80-44; HOPE CD 80-45
V. : HOPE CD 80-46; HOPE CD 80-47
: HOPE CD 80-48; HOPE CD 80-49
BISHOP COAL CO.,
:
Respondent : Bishop Mine

DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDINGS

This case concerns a complaint of discrimination filed pursuant to sec- tion 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, on July 30, 1979, on behalf of various employees of Respondent, Bishop Coal Company.

The complaint alleges that Respondent's failure to pay employee represen- tation for the time spent accompanying Federal inspectors on "non-regular" inspections constitutes a violation of sections 103(f) and 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.

Upon receipt of the complaint, the Secretary conducted an investigation.
On May 2, 1980, the Secretary notified Applicant, in writing, of the determina- tion that a violation of the Act had not occurred.

On June 2, 1980, the Applicant filed its complaint with the Commission.
Respondent's answer and motion for summary decision and dismissal were filed on June 17, 1980. Respondent moved that the case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted citing Helen Mining Company, 1 FMSHRC 1796 (1979); Kentland-Elkhorn Coal Corporation, 1 FMSHRC 1833 (1979); and Magma Copper Company, 1 FMSHRC 1948 (1979) as dispositive of this action in that employee representatives are not entitled to compensation for the time spent accompanying MSHA inspectors during spot inspections of a mine.

2160
On June 27, 1980, Applicant filed its response to Respondent's motion in the form of a motion to stay proceedings 1/, claiming, inter alia, that the cases cited by Respondent are not dispositive of the primary allegation made in the complaint, namely, whether Respondent's policy of compensating its supervisory personnel but not its employee representatives, for time spent accompanying MSHA officials on all non-regular inspections constitutes unlaw- ful discrimination under 105(c) of the Act. Applicant also claimed that the cited cases were erroneously decided and that MSHA's policy of abiding by them pending applicable review interferes with the rights of miners' repre- sentatives to carry out the purposes of the Act.

DISCUSSION

The facts upon which Applicant relies in its complaint are not in dispute.
Applicant admits therein and the record is otherwise clear that none of the inspections were "regular" inspections.

I conclude that Respondent's position is meritorious and that it is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law. Judge Koutras aptly pointed out in Island Creek Coal Company and Virginia Pocahontas Company v. MSHA and UMWA, Docket Nos. VA 79-601, 62, and 63-R, (decided June 3, 1980), that the Commission has decided the issues presented in these type proceedings with finality and has held that miners' representatives are not entitled to be compensated for the time spent on walkarounds during the course of a spot inspection. That precedent is controlling in these proceedings.2/The fact that MSHA and the UMWA have seen fit to appeal the Commission's final rulings is no basis for staying these proceedings. Applicant's motion for a stay of these proceedings, is denied.

I conclude that the Commission's precedent decisions with respect to the rights of a miner to be compensated during a spot walkaround inspection are dispositive of the issues presented here and that Respondent is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law.

Accordingly, Respondent's motion for summary decision is granted and this case is dismissed with prejudice.

ORDER

Applicant's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Michael A. Lasher, Jr., Judge

1/ Applicant's motion for staying proceedings constitutes a response to Respon- dent's motion for summary decision and dismissal since Applicant dealt therein with Respondent's motion. 2/ The fact that Respondent pays its supervisory employees for time spent on non-regular inspections is irrelevant to this holding.

2161

Distribution:
Kurt Kobelt and Mary Lu Jordan, Esq., United Mine Workers of America, 900 Fifteenth St., NW., Washington, DC 20005

Mr. Bill Trump, Superintendent, Bishop Coal Company, Pocahontas, VA 24635

Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 4015 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22203

Special Investigation, MSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 4015 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22203

Karl T. Skrypak, Esq., Consolidation Coal Company, 1800 Washington Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15241

2162

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