Consolidation Coal Co. (ALJ decision, June 1, 1981)

Plain-English summary

The parties sought approval of a $900 settlement for a charge involving about 24 tons of loose coal in two entries of Consolidation Coal's Pursglove No. 15 Mine. The judge said a section foreman had noticed the condition but took no corrective action, and the record did not show what caused the accumulation. He described management's disregard of the danger as culpable and found the proposed settlement marginally acceptable after independent review. He approved the settlement, ordered payment by June 19, and directed dismissal once the payment was made.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): No specific safety standard cited in the decision.
• Outcome: Settlement approved for $900, with dismissal subject to payment.
• Key point: The judge approved the reduced penalty while emphasizing that management's disregard of a dangerous coal accumulation was attributable to the operator.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. CONSOLIDATION COAL
DDATE:
19810601
TTEXT:

~1426
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Civil Penalty Proceeding
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. WEVA 81-270
PETITIONER
A.O. No. 46-01454-03076V
v.
Pursglove No. 15
CONSOLIDATION COAL CO.,
RESPONDENT

DECISION AND ORDER

The parties move for approval of a settlement (at 90% of the amount initially assessed) of a charge that on August 14, 1980, a federal mine inspector observed an accumulation of approximately 24 tons of loose coal in the number 2 and 4 entries of the 1 Right Section of the Pursglove No. 15 Mine. Sometime prior to this the condition had been noted by the section foreman, Michael Jackson, who took no corrective action. The record does not show what action or inaction by the section foreman or his superiors resulted in this excessive and dangerous accumulation of combustibles.

What is clear is that this was a violation that resulted from a culpable indifference on the part of management to a reasonably foreseeable and objectively ascertainable risk of serious bodily harm or death. Under existing law, this disregard for the safety of the mine is automatically imputable to the operator. As this case shows, enforcement would be seriously debilitated if this rule were changed so as to immunize operators from accountability for serious violations on a showing that the condition was attributable to an act of negligent indifference by an individual rank-and-file miner or his supervisor.

Based on an independent evaluation and de novo review of the circumstances, I find the proposed settlement is marginally acceptable. Once again I must voice my concern that no disciplinary action was taken against the individual or individuals responsible because management apparently feels such action is counterproductive to other objectives.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion to approve settlement be, and hereby is, GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the operator pay the amount of the settlement agreed upon, $900, on or before

~1427
Friday, June 19, and that subject to payment the captioned matter be DISMISSED.

Joseph B. Kennedy
Administrative Law Judge