Consolidation Coal Company

Plain-English summary

Ronnie E. Price, a roof bolter at Consolidation Coal's Blacksville No. 1 Mine, alleged that supervisors discriminated against him after he raised safety concerns about methane readings and ventilation. Judge Avram Weisberger found that Price engaged in protected activity, and that moving him to the left side of a bolter was a slight adverse action that was motivated in part by his complaints. The judge nevertheless found that the reassignment would have occurred because of Price's unprotected conduct, and that the other alleged actions were not shown to be discriminatory. The complaint was dismissed.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(1)
• Outcome: The discrimination complaint was dismissed.
• Key point: Protected safety complaints and temporal proximity did not establish liability when the operator showed the challenged action would have occurred for an unprotected reason.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Page 2

~1122

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Administrative Law Judges
2 Skyline, 10th Floor
5203 Lessburg Pike
Falls Church, Virginia 2204

RONNIE E. PRICE, DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
v. Docket No. WEVA 90-308-D

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, MORG CD 90-10
RESPONDENT
Blacksville No. 1 Mine

DECISION

Appearances: James B. Zimarowski, Esq., Morgantown,
West Virginia, for the Complainant;
Walter J. Scheller III, Esq., Consolidation
Coal Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the
Respondent.

Before: Judge Weisberger

Statement of the Case

This case is before me based upon a complaint of
discrimination filed by Ronnie E. Price (Complainant) on August
10, 1990, alleging that Consolidation Coal Company (Respondent)
discriminated against him in violation of Section 105(c) of the
Act. (Footnote 1) Pursuant to notice, the case was scheduled for
hearing on January 15, 1991. Subsequently, in a telephone
conference call between Counsel for both Parties, Counsel for
Complainant indicated that Complainant saw him for the first time
on January 11, 1991, and accordingly requested an adjournment to
prepare for the hearing. The request was not opposed and was granted.
The case was rescheduled for March 5, 1991. On February 25, 1991, in
a telephone conference call with Counsel for both Parties,
Counsel for Complainant requested a further adjournment in order
to effectively prepare for hearing. This request was not objected
to and the case was adjourned and rescheduled for April 30 and
May 1, 1991. The case was heard at

Page 3

~1123
that time in Morgantown, West Virginia. At the hearing, Ronnie
Price, John Mason, Terry G. Collins, and Charles Edward Haun
testified for Complainant. Francis Pethtel, Peter Yost Turner,
Ronald Darrah, Paul J. Borchick, Jr., and J. Robert Levo
testified for Respondent. Complainant filed proposed Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law on June 17, 1991. Respondent filed a
Posthearing Brief on July 1, 1991.

Findings of Fact and Discussion

Ronnie Price is a roof bolter employed by Respondent, and
during the relevant times at issue, worked in the P-9 Section on
the midnight shift. In the middle of March 1990, a new foreman
Donald Darrah was assigned to the section. The first day that
Darrah was on the section, Price, along with John Mason, Terry G.
Collins, and Doug Harper, brought a complaint to Darrah that he
did not sign the date board. Also on another occasion, Price
informed Darrah and Paul J. Borchick, Jr., the shift foreman,
that the former had not properly ventilated the belt area when it
was moved. On another occasion, Price told Borchick that Darrah
had wanted to tram a miner in order to get rid of gas. According
to Price, at the end of the shift on April 17, he obtained a
methane reading of one percent, whereas Darrah had reported a
reading of .02 percent across the face. Price informed MSHA
Inspector Dale Dinning of this problem. Price was asked on
cross-examination if he told Darrah about it, and he said "yes,
he was told about it" (Tr. 66). Darrah denied that Price made
this complaint to him. However, Borchick indicated that Price
informed him that Darrah had called the section safe in spite of
the fact that one percent of methane was found at the heading. I
conclude that Price, in voicing safety concerns to either Darrah
or Borchick, was engaged in protected activities.

Essentially, in order to establish that he has been
discriminated against in violation of Section 105(c) of the Act,
Complainant herein has the burden of establishing a prima facie
case by proving that he engaged in protected activities and that
adverse action taken against him was motivated in any part by the
protected activity. (Pasula, 2 FMSHRC at 2797-2800; Secretary on
behalf of Robinette v. United Castle Coal Company, 3 FMSHRC 803,
817-81 (April 1981). The prima facie case may be rebutted by the
Operator by showing either that no protected activity occurred,
or that the adverse action was not motivated in any part by the
protected activity (See Robinette, supra, at 818 n.20; see also
Boich v. FMSHRC, 719 F.2d 194, 195-96 (6th Cir. 1983)).

Essentially, it is Complainant's position that adverse
action in the form of harassment was taken against him which was
motivated in any part by his protected activities.

From the middle of March when Darrah became the foreman of
the section, through April 18, Price had made various safety

Page 4

~1124
complaints directly to Borchick, and to Darrah directly or
indirectly through Borchick. According to Borchick and Darrah,
the day after Price made a complaint about the methane gas
readings, Darrah changed his location from bolting on the right
to bolting on the left side. (Footnote 2) According to Price, when
Darrah made this switch he (Darrah) "had a very bad attitude"
(Tr. 44). He was asked to describe this attitude and answered as
follows:

A. Well, just, you know, you're going to do it that
way, you know. You're going to do as I said, I'm the
foreman here which Mr. Levo told me the same thing.
Darrah is the foreman on that section.

Q. Okay. Did Mr. Darrah use the words that he's the
foreman and you're going to do it his way?

A. Well, yeah and a few others that I don't use.

Q. All right. Now, is that just his way of conversing
with his crew or does he single out you in particular
to talk to you that way?

A. Well, yeah, pretty well just not me, but me and two
or three other ones. You know, some of the others he
don't get along with (sic).

Q. Which two or three others did he kind of act very
combative to?

A. Well, John Mason, Terry and his very best friend
John Keener. I mean they don't even get along now.

Q. And these individuals have also raised safety issues

A. Yeah. (Tr. 45).

Darrah testified essentially that bolting from either the
right or the left side requires the use of identical controls
although their order is reversed. He indicated further that
although the section's two bolters usually work out between
themselves the side they work on, he decided to switch Price in
order to remove him from working close to the miner operator,

Page 5

~1125
located on the right side, inasmuch as Price is a "talker." (Tr.
228). According to Darrah he thought such a move would increase
production.

Although the performance of the task of bolting appears to
be the same whether performed from the right or left side, the
bolter working on the left side in the P-9 Section would also
have to tug and pull the ventilation tube located on that side.
According to Price, bolters are usually rotated between the right
and left sides, and he would not be able to work on the left side
and pull and tug the tube all the time. Darrah indicated that
although he had an extra man placed on the left side who does all
the tugging and lugging, he agreed that a bolter working on the
left side would be required to do a "little" more physical labor
(Tr. 256). Accordingly, I find that, to some degree, the
switching by Darrah of Price to the left side of the bolter
constituted an adverse action. Further, inasmuch as this action
was taken the day following Price's complaints about methane
readings, and following Price's other complaints made within the
preceding approximately 30 days, I conclude that this adverse
action was motivated in part by Price's complaints.

Essentially, according to Complainant, Darrah not only took
adverse action against him for voicing complaints, but also
manifested animus towards Collins and Mason, who also had made
safety complaints. Mason had complained to Darrah about the
latter having required him to continue to load coal behind the
miner to such an extent, that he (Mason) was concerned that there
would be inadequate space for sufficient air to provide adequate
ventilation. He also was concerned that there would be inadequate
room for miners to escape in the event of an emergency. The
following day, on April 18, Mason was transferred from the
section to a position as a bolter. However, he received the same
wages and did not suffer any loss of pay as a consequence of the
transfer. Borchick said he removed Mason from the section because
he felt that Mason had difficultly operating the satellite miner,
and that another person was available who had more experience
operating such a miner. According to Borchick, the switch was
made to increase production.

Collins also had complained to Darrah about his methane
checks. He also had raised concerns about the safety of certain
cables, and the need for bolting. Collins was transferred off the
section to another section, but was given the same job at the
same rate of pay. Thus, the evidence is inadequate to establish
that in general Respondent has responded to protected activities
by taking adverse action.

When Darrah decided to shift Price to the left side to
prevent him from talking to the miner operator, the latter had
been in that position for only 1 day, and had replaced Mason a
close friend of Price. According to Price, he had told Darrah at

Page 6

~1126
the end of the prior shift that his (Price's) methane reading was
two percent (Tr. 66, 68). However, neither Collins nor Mason who
were with Price when he obtained the 2 percent methane reading,
corroborated the testimony of Price that he directly informed
Darrah of the reading. On cross-examination Collins indicated
that when the methane was found, Darrah was at the belt heading,
and that when the crew picked Darrah up at the mouth of the
section, no one told him of the methane readings (Tr. 132). Based
on my observation of his demeanor, I find the testimony of Darrah
reliable, that he first found out about Price's methane reading
when informed by Borchick at the end of the shift at
approximately 8:30 a.m. According to Darrah it bothered him that
the problem with the methane was not brought to his attention by
Price, but was instead told to him by his supervisor. In this
connection, I note that Darrah had been promoted from an hourly
worker to a foreman only a few weeks before, and was younger and
far less experienced in the mines than Price, Mason, and Collins.
Accordingly, and taking into account the slight degree of adverse
action in switching Price to the left side, I conclude that the
action would have been taken in any event, based on Price's
unprotected activities alone, i.e., having made the complaint to
Darrah's supervisor rather than Darrah.

According to Price, he is required to take medication twice
a day, 12 hours apart, a half hour before a meal, as "its the
only way it would work in my system" (Tr. 30). He also testified
that "it would make me sick if I take it and then didn't eat"
(Tr. 41). Essentially it was Price's testimony that aside from
Darrah, "all" of his foremen brought him his medication at three
o'clock (Tr. 28). He also said that "most foremen would come up
and say, hey, we're going to move this and we're going to do that
and we'll do this. We'll have it done by such and such a time.
You go take your medicine and be ready to eat at that time." (Tr.
55). This was confirmed by Collins who indicated that if a belt
was down, the foreman would inform Price that they would be
eating early and would bring him his medication. Otherwise, if
the belt was not down, the crew would eat at 4:00 o'clock. Price
also said that there were times when he had to work through
lunch. He said he did not do so "willingly" and that "most"
foremen advised him in advance that he would be working through
lunch and eating later, so he was able to take his medication and
then grab a sandwich or cup of coffee. (Tr. 55). He said that if
a breakdown occurred at 3 o'clock and the crew was sent to eat,
he did not take his medication, and did not eat. He said that he
was able to take his medication when he was told that "we're
going to be down for a half hour" (Tr. 57).

Francis Pethtel who, was Price's foreman from October 1989
through March 15, 1990, indicated that normally the crew would
eat at 4:00 o'clock, but that there was no set time, and "quite
often," the crew would not eat at 4:00 o'clock. (Tr. 187). He
indicated that he did not inform Price daily that he would be

Page 7

~1127
eating in a half hour. However, on cross-examination he indicated
that if he knew in advance that the crew would not be eating at
4:00 o'clock, he would inform Price of this fact. He indicated
that if the belt was down at 3:00 o'clock, Price then went to the
dinner hole, took his medicine, and then ate on the way back to
the working area. Price did not rebut this statement.

Price indicated that the first week that Darrah took over as
foreman, the crew ate at 4:00 o'clock, unless there was a
breakdown. If this occurred, he went to take his medicine at
3:30. Darrah essentially indicated that prior to April 18, the
lunch time varied, but that if he did not specify the time, the
crew ate at 4:00 o'clock, and he indicated that three out of five
times the crew ate at 4:00 o'clock.

According to Price, on April 16 or 17, a miner had to be
moved, and as a consequence he worked through lunch. He indicated
that he spoke to Darrah, and told him that he would like to know
what time he would eat so he could take his medicine. He
indicated that all he needed was to be notified a half hour
before lunch regardless of the time of lunch. According to Price,
Darrah asked for a slip from his doctor, but subsequently did not
want to accept the slip. Price indicated that he did not tell
Darrah that he needed a designated time to eat lunch. He said
that Darrah told him that lunch time is between 3 and 5, and that
he is to eat when he is told to. He indicated that Darrah did not
make any effort to communicate to him and inform him a half hour
before eating time.

Subsequently, according to Price, he spoke with Jay Robert
Levo the superintendent of the mine, and did not ask for a
designated time to eat, but he repeated his request to be
notified a half hour before lunch time. According to Price, Levo
informed him that he will have 30 minutes before lunch to take
his medicine, and that he did not need a medical slip. Price said
that Levo told him that he could either continue with his past
practice or he could submit the medical slip. Price said that
Levo told him that if the company accepts the slip, he is no
longer needed, as it is company policy not to have someone work
with limitations. Charles Edward Haun, a miner who is a member of
the Union Safety Committee, was with Price when he spoke with
Levo, and confirmed Price's version of the conversation with
Levo.

Collins testified that Price asked Darrah to inform him a
half hour before the time to eat, and that this conversation
occurred at the beginning of the shift, before any mining had
taken place. He said that Price did not ask for a designated
time, and that Darrah "snapped" at him and asked him to obtain a
doctor's slip. (Tr. 122). According to Collins, the following day
Price asked Darrah if he would let him know a half hour

Page 8

~1128
before lunch time and Darrah indicated that he would eat between
3 and 5, and he said it "just like being a smart aleck" (Tr.
127).

Price indicated that he filed a grievance on April 26, and
that subsequently the lunch time was changed, but that Darrah did
not let him take his medicine and told him he could not take his
medicine. He said at times he worked through lunch and
accordingly, did not eat.

According to Darrah, on April 19, 1990, when he first came
on the section, he informed Price that he was transferring him to
the left side of the bolter. He then firebossed for 15 minutes
and upon completion of that task, Price requested of him a "set,"
"designated" time for dinner (Tr. 218). According to Darrah,
Price told him he wanted to eat at the same time every day.
Darrah stated that Price did not request a half hour notice prior
to eating and that nothing preceded the request by Price. He
indicated that the tenor of the discussion with Price was
"conversational," rather than "confrontational" (Tr. 271), and
that he (Darrah) said that the only way he could accommodate
Price was if the latter would bring a doctor's note indicating
that he was required to eat at a set time daily.

According to Borchick, on April 19, 1990, Price asked for a
"designated" eating time. (Tr. 30, 51). Borchick stated that
Price used that term "numerous times." (Tr. 51). Borchick stated
that when Price told him that Darrah indicated that he could not
give him a designated eating time with out a doctor's slip, he
told him that such a slip is not necessary, but that he would
check with Levo. Levo and Borchick both testified, in essence,
that Levo told Price that a note is not necessary. Levo further
told Price that if he submits a note that indicates that a set
time for lunch is needed, the note may be considered
documentation of restricted duty which is not allowed by the
company.

Despite the conflict in the testimony between the witnesses
for Complainant and Respondent as to what was requested by Price,
it is clear that there is no evidence that Respondent treated
Price differently than other miners. There is no evidence that
any miner had a set time to eat lunch. Nor is there any evidence
that any other miners were given advance notice by their foreman
of the time that a lunch break would be given. In essence, both
Collins and Price indicated that prior to Price's request of
Darrah, the crew had lunch at 4:00 o'clock, unless work had
stopped before that time due to a breakdown of equipment.
According to Price, after he brought in a note from his doctor,
the time for lunch was changed, Darrah told him he could not take
his medicine, and Darrah did not let him take the medicine. I do
not place much weight on this testimony. Price did not provide
any specifics regarding any details as to exactly what occurred

Page 9

~1129
when Darrah did not let him take his medicine. He did not provide
any specifics regarding the circumstances of this action, nor did
he indicate when it occurred. Neither did he describe the context
and content of any specific statement Darrah made in telling him
that he could not take his medicine. Also, having observed the
demeanor of Darrah, I find his testimony credible that, prior to
April 19, there was no set time for lunch, and that although
three out of five times, lunch was at 4:00 o'clock, the time did
vary. This is consistent with the testimony of his predecessor
Pethtel, whose testimony I found credible. In this connection,
Collins indicated that the day after Price made his initial
request, he again asked Darrah if he would let him know what time
he would eat. According to Collins, Darrah told him "you eat
between 3 and 5." (Tr. 125). Collins was asked to describe the
manner in which Darrah responded, and he indicated that he was
"just like being a smart aleck." (Tr. 127). However, on
cross-examination, he indicated that Darrah did not change the
routine as to lunch.

According to Price, Darrah requested him to bring in a note
from his doctor. Even if this request is interpreted as an act of
harassment, the evidence fails to establish a causal nexus
between it and Price's safety complaints. I accept the testimony
of Darrah, as it was corroborated by Collins, that the
conversation regarding a medical slip occurred at the beginning
of the shift. Although the evidence is in conflict with regard to
the exact request made by Price of Darrah, the testimony is
consistent in establishing that Darrah's remarks about the need
for a medical note came after and in response to Price's request.
I find that it was Price, not Darrah, who initiated any change in
status quo with regard to lunch time. Darrah's comments with
regard to the submission of documentation from Price's doctor
were made the day following Price's complaints about methane
readings. However, since these comments were made solely in
response to a request made by Price, I conclude that there is no
nexus between these comments and Price's complaints the previous
evening.

Taking all the above into account, I conclude that the
evidence establishes that any adverse action taken by Respondent
against Price would have been taken in either event, based on
unprotected activities alone. Hence, Complainant has failed to
establish that he was discriminated against in violation of
Section 105(c) of the Act. (Footnote 3)

Page 10

~1130
ORDER

It is ORDERED that the Complaint herein be DISMISSED.

Avram Weisberger
Administrative Law Judge

1. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties at the hearing,
   the Complaint which was submitted at the hearing, shall be deemed
   to have been filed on August 10, 1990.

2. I find the testimony of Borchick and Darrah with regard
   to the specific dates involved more reliable as it was consistent
   with their contemporaneous notes.

3. In his Brief, Complainant alleges that "as a direct and
   proximate result" of Darrah's discriminatory and retaliatory
   action against him, Complainant "lost three (3) days work." The
   only testimony on this point is Price's statement that he was off
   from April 20 to April 23 "with my heart due to harassment" (Tr.
   37) (sic). Complainant also offered as evidence a note from his
   physician, John Manchin II, D.O. which states that he was absent
   from work on these dates ". . . due to anxiety and nervousness
   caused by a situation at work in which he was not permitted to
   take his medication." I find this evidence insufficient to
   establish a good faith reasonable belief that continued work
   involves a hazardous condition. Further, there is no evidence of
   any communication made by Price to management concerning any
   refusal to work on the dates in question. As such, it has not
   been established that Price had a right not to work on the dates
   in question, and that Respondent is responsible for his wages on
   those dates (See, Secretary on behalf of Keene v. S & M Coal
   Company, Inc., 10 FMSHRC 1145, 1150 (1988)).