Bear Run Coals, Incorporated, Mr. David "Toby" Toney, W-P Coal Incorporated

Plain-English summary

Nicholas Ramirez alleged that Bear Run Coals, Incorporated and the other respondents laid him off because he served as the miners' representative. The parties reached a settlement before the scheduled hearing and submitted it for approval under the Commission's settlement rule. Judge George A. Koutras found that the agreement reasonably resolved the complaint and served the public interest. He approved the settlement and ordered the parties to comply, after which the matter would be dismissed with prejudice.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c) and 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31
• Outcome: The proposed settlement was approved, with dismissal with prejudice upon compliance.
• Key point: A settlement resolving a discrimination complaint may be approved when it is reasonable and in the public interest.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Page 2

~2331

NICHOLAS RAMIREZ, : DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
Complainant :
v. : Docket No. WEVA 92-1115-D
:
BEAR RUN COALS, INCORPORATED, : HOPE CD 92-9
MR. DAVID "TOBY" TONEY, :
W-P COAL INCORPORATED, : Mine No. 21
Respondents :

              DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Koutras

                  Statement of the Case

 This proceeding concerns a complaint of alleged

discrimination filed by the complainant against the respondent
pursuant to section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 815(c). The complainant alleges that he
was laid off by the respondent on May 5, 1992, because he served
as the miners' representative at the mine.

 The case was scheduled for hearing in Logan, West Virginia,

on October 26, 1993. However, the hearing was continued after
the parties advised me that they agreed to settle the matter.
They have now filed their joint settlement proposal pursuant to
Commission Rule 31, 29 C.F.R. 2700.31, seeking approval of the
proposed settlement.

                         Discussion

 The parties have agreed to the resolution of all matters set

forth in the complaint and have settled the matter. The terms of
the settlement are set forth in an agreement executed by counsel
for the respondents, and the complainant. All of the parties,
including the complainant, have singed the agreement.

                         Conclusion

 After careful review and consideration of the settlement

terms and conditions I find that they reflect a reasonable
resolution of the complaint and that the proposed settlement is
in the public interest. Since it is apparent that all parties
are in accord with the agreement for the settlement disposition
of the complaint, I see no reason why it should not be approved.

Page 3

~2332
ORDER

 The proposed settlement IS APPROVED. The parties ARE

ORDERED AND DIRECTED to forthwith comply with all the terms of
the agreement. Upon compliance, this matter is dismissed with
prejudice.

                            George A. Koutras
                            Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Mary Lu Jordan, Esq., United Mine Workers of America,
900 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (Certified Mail)

Billy R. Shelton, Esq., Baird, Baird, Baird & Jones, 415 Second
Street, P.O. Box 351, Pikeville, KY 41502 (Certified Mail)

Kurt A. Miller, Esq., THORP, REED & ARMSTRONG, One Riverfront
Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Certified Mail)

/ml