R.B.S., Incorporated

Plain-English summary

The Secretary of Labor brought a discrimination proceeding on behalf of Paul H. Brooks against R.B.S., Incorporated. The Secretary moved to approve a settlement and explained that the evidence might not establish that Brooks adequately communicated legitimate safety concerns, so that a section 105(c) violation might not have occurred. Judge David Barbour found the settlement to be in the public interest, approved it, and dismissed the case. No civil penalty was assessed against R.B.S., Incorporated.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)
• Outcome: The settlement was approved, the matter was dismissed, and no civil penalty was assessed.
• Key point: An ALJ approved a discrimination settlement when the record could not establish that the complainant adequately communicated legitimate safety concerns.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. R.B.S., INCORPORATED
DDATE:
19930525
TTEXT:

Page 2

~928

      FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

             OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
                    2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
                     5203 LEESBURG PIKE
                FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. WEVA 93-89-DM
on behalf of Paul H. Brooks, :
Complainant : NE MD 92-03
v. :
: Greystone Quarry and Plant
R.B.S., INCORPORATED, :
Contestant :

                 ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Barbour

 The Secretary, on behalf of Paul H. Brooks, Complainant, has

moved to approve settlement of this discrimination proceeding.
The Secretary's motion fully sets forth the terms on conditions
of the settlement, including the fact that the Secretary requests
no civil penalty be assessed against R.B.S., Incorporated,
Contestant, because the evidence at trial may not establish that
the complainant adequately communicated his legitimate safety
concerns to the Contestant and thus a violation of section 105(c)
of the Act may not have occurred.

 Obviously, the Complainant, who has signed the motion,

believed the proposed settlement is in his best interest, and I
conclude that it is in the public interest as well. It resolves
allegation of discrimination as set forth in the Secretary's
complaint and, that being the case there is no further reason for
the parties to contest this case.

 ACCORDINGLY, the settlement is APPROVED.      This matter is

DISMISSED.

                            David Barbour
                            Administrative Law Judge
                            (703)756-5232

Distribution:

Patrick L. DePace, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department
of Labor, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 516, Arlington, VA 22203
(Certified Mail)

David J. Hardy, Esq., Jackson and Kelly, P.O. Box 553,
Charleston, WV 25322 (Certified Mail)

\epy