Consolidation Coal Company

Plain-English summary

The United Mine Workers sought compensation for miners idled by withdrawal orders issued after an explosion at Consolidation Coal's Blacksville No. 1 Mine. The union moved to dismiss its claims under the first two sentences of Mine Act section 111 after the parties settled and paid the claimants. Judge David F. Barbour granted the motion as to those claims. The claims under the third sentence remained stayed while MSHA investigated whether citations or orders should issue.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. §§ 821, 813(k), and 817(a).
• Outcome: The first two sentence 111 claims were dismissed after settlement, while the third-sentence claims remained stayed.
• Key point: A partial settlement resolved only the compensation claims covered by the agreement, leaving the separate imminent-danger claims pending a later MSHA determination.

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

UNITED MINE WORKERS OF : COMPENSATION PROCEEDING
AMERICA ON BEHALF OF :
LOCAL UNION NO. 1588, : Docket No. WEVA 92-1006-C
Petitioner :
: Blacksville No. 1 Mine
:
v. :
:
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, :
Respondent :

               PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT

Before: Judge Barbour

 In this proceeding, arising under Section 111 of the Federal

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 821, ("Mine
Act"), the United Mine Workers of America ("UMWA") on behalf of
Local Union 1588 seeks compensation under the first two sentences
of Section 111 for miners idled by an order of withdrawal issued
on March 19, 1992, pursuant to Section 103(k) of The Mine Act
following an explosion that occurred the same day at
Consolidation Coal Company's ("Consol") Blacksville No. 1 Mine.
The UMWA also seeks compensation under the third sentence of
Section 111 for miners idled by an order issued on March 22,
1992, pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Mine Act, for an
allegedly imminently dangerous condition arising out of the same
explosion.

 Because counsels were involved in settlement negotiations

concerning the UMWA's claims regarding the Section 103(k) order
and because the Secretary's Mining Enforcement and Safety
Administration (MSHA) had yet to complete its investigation of
the explosion and consequently, had not issued any citations or
orders alledging that the Section 107(a) withdrawal order closed
the mine "for a failure of the operator to comply with any
mandatory health or safety standards", the parties moved that the
case be stayed, and I granted the motion.

 The UMWA now seeks dismissal of its complaint with respect

to its claims under the first two sentences of Section 111. The
UMWA asserts that in essence the parties have settled these
claims and that payment has been made to claimants in accordance
with the terms of the agreement. The UMWA has attached a joint
"Stipulation of Partial Settlement and Partial Release of Claims"
to its motion. Counsel for Consol had advised me that he
concurrs with the UMWA's motion.

 ACCORDINGLY, the motion is GRANTED. The UMWA's complaint

with respect to the first two sentences of Section 111 is
DISMISSED. The proceeding involving its third sentence claims
continues to be stayed pending a determination by MSHA whether
citations or orders alleging violations of any mandatory health
or safety standards should be issued in conjunction with the
subject Section 107(a) order and the issuance by MSHA of such
citations or orders.

                          David F. Barbour
                          Administrative Law Judge
                          (703) 756-5232

Distribution:

Mary Lu Jordan, Esq., UMWA, 900 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC
20005 (Certified Mail)

David J. Hardy, Esq., Jackson & Kelly, 1600 Laidley Tower,
P.O. Box 553, Charleston, WV 25322 (Certified Mail)

/epy