Ezel / Agency Decisions / WEVA 80-648-D

Local Union 6025, UMWA v. Consolidation Coal Company (ALJ decision, October 30, 1980)

Local Union 6025 v. Consolidation Coal (FMSHRC WEVA 80-648-D and WEVA 80-649-D): Walkaround pay complaints dismissed

Decision type
ALJ decision
Dockets
WEVA 80-648-D, WEVA 80-649-D
Decided
October 30, 1980
Presiding judge
James A. Broderick
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-23
Cited standards
30 U.S.C. § 815(c) 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(c)
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

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 decision, not Commission precedent
This decision became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not binding on the Commission in other cases. 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.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Local Union 6025 filed two discrimination complaints alleging that Consolidation Coal refused to pay walkaround representatives for taking part in spot or irregular mine inspections. Chief Judge James A. Broderick found that an earlier Commission ruling had already established that such representatives need not be paid for those inspections. He dismissed the complaints on their face without obtaining a response from the company, citing the history of similar claims and the need for prompt resolution. The order awarded no relief or penalty.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: Mine Act section 105(c), 30 U.S.C. § 815(c), and 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(c).
  • Outcome: Both discrimination complaints dismissed for failure to state a claim; no relief awarded.
  • Key point: The judge applied the Commission's earlier ruling on payment for spot-inspection walkaround representatives.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
LOCAL 6025 (UMWA) V. CONSOLIDATION COAL DDATE: 19801030 TTEXT:
~3189

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

LOCAL UNION 6025, UNITED MINE Complaint of Discharge,
WORKERS OF AMERICA (UMWA),
Discrimination, or Interference
COMPLAINANT
Docket No. WEVA 80-648-D
v. HOPE CD 80-59

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
Docket No. WEVA 80-649-D
RESPONDENT HOPE CD 80-72 thru 80-74

Bishop Mine

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On August 26, 1980, Complainant filed complaints of discrimination in these cases, based on section 105(c) of the Act. These are two of a number of cases filed against Respondent by Complainant for refusals to pay walkaround representatives for participating in "Spot" or irregular inspections. See Local 6025, UMWA v. Bishop Coal Company, 2 FMSHRC 2160 (August 7, 1980); Local 6025, UMWA v. Consolidation Coal Company, Docket No. WEVA 80-457-D (Order of Dismissal, October 20, 1980).

On their faces, these complaints are without merit. It is settled that a walkaround representative need not be paid for participating in a "spot" or irregular inspection. MSHA v. Helen Mining, Inc. 1 FMSHRC 1796 (November 21, 1979). Ordinarily, a responsive pleading should be obtained from Respondent, but in view of the history of these claims and need to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of all proceedings, the complaints will be dismissed. 29 C.F.R. 2700.1(c).

Complainant has not stated claims upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the cases are DISMISSED.

James A. Broderick
Chief 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