Monument Mining Corporation v. Secretary of Labor (ALJ decision, February 13, 1985)
Monument Mining Corporation v. Secretary of Labor (FMSHRC WEVA 84-353-R, et al.): Five order contests dismissed
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1985 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.
Plain-English summary
Monument Mining Corporation contested five MSHA orders involving its No. 1 Surface Mine. Judge George A. Koutras repeatedly ordered the company to identify its representative and say whether it wished to continue the contests. Monument Mining did not respond, and certified mailings were returned unclaimed, marked addressee unknown, or marked postal box closed. Its former counsel had been relieved because he was no longer authorized to represent the company. The judge dismissed all five contests for failure to respond, comply with the representation rule, or pursue the claims. The order makes no ruling on the underlying mine conditions and states no penalty amount.
Decision snapshot
- Governing rule: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.5, notice of changes in representation.
- Outcome: Five order contests dismissed for failure to respond and prosecute; no penalty stated.
- Key point: The operator's lack of contact and failure to accept service ended its contest proceedings.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
MONUMENT MINING V. SOL (MSHA)
DDATE:
19850213
TTEXT:
~232
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges
MONUMENT MINING CORPORATION,
CONTEST PROCEEDINGS
CONTESTANT
Docket No. WEVA 84-353-R
v. Order No. 2274263; 7/16/84
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Docket No. WEVA 84-354-R
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
Order No. 2274263-01; 7/17/84
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
RESPONDENT
Docket No. WEVA 84-355-R
Order No. 2142667; 7/17/84
Docket No. WEVA 84-356-R
Order No. 2142668; 7/17/84
Docket No. WEVA 84-374-R
Order No. 2438645; 8/1/84
No. 1 Surface Mine
ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDINGS
Before: Judge Koutras
The contestant has failed to respond to my previously issued orders and show cause orders directing it to furnish the name, address, and telephone number of its representative, and to advise me whether or not it wishes to pursue these contests further. In addition, the contestant has refused to accept service of said orders, and the postal service has returned the certified mailings as "unclaimed," "addressee unknown," or "postal box closed." Contestant's previously retained counsel has been dismissed on his own motion as the representative of the contestant on the ground that he is no longer authorized to represent the contestant in these proceedings.
In view of the foregoing, and in light of the contestant's failure to communicate further with this Commission with respect to the pursuit of the contests, these cases ARE DISMISSED, and the reasons for this action are (1) the contestant's failure to respond to the presiding Judge's orders, ~233
(2) the failure by the contestant to comply with Commission Rule 5, 29 C.F.R. 2700.5, which requires a party to inform the Commission of any changes of representation, and (3) the obvious failure by the contestant to pursue its claims, or to otherwise explain why it is avoiding service of all further communications in the proceedings.
George A. Koutras
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