Duke's Sand & Gravel
Duke's Sand & Gravel (FMSHRC YORK 2012-97-M): Misplaced delivered assessment reopened
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2012, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A former Duke's Sand & Gravel employee who was not authorized to accept packages signed for a proposed assessment. The assessment was later found misplaced under a box on a workbench after the contest deadline had passed. The Secretary did not oppose reopening but urged the operator to improve its handling of future assessments. The Commission reopened the assessment and remanded it for further proceedings.
Decision snapshot
- Cited provisions: 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28; 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
- Outcome: The final penalty assessment was reopened and remanded for proceedings on the merits.
- Key point: Mishandling by an unauthorized employee may support reopening, but operators need reliable procedures for delivered assessment documents.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-1710
December 5, 2012
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
v.
DUKE’S SAND & GRAVEL
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket No. YORK 2012-97-M
A.C. No. 19-01212-275527
BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Young and Nakamura, Commissioners
ORDER
BY THE COMMISSION:
This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On February 21, 2012, the Commission received from
Duke’s Sand & Gravel (“Duke’s”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment that had
become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C.
§ 815(a).
Under section 105(a) of the Mine Act, an operator who wishes to contest a proposed
penalty must notify the Secretary of Labor no later than 30 days after receiving the proposed
penalty assessment. If the operator fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment
is deemed a final order of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).
We have held, however, that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to
reopen uncontested assessments that have become final Commission orders under section 105(a).
Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993) (“JWR”). In evaluating requests to
reopen final section 105(a) orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which, for example, a party could be entitled to relief
from a final order of the Commission on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) (“the Commission and its Judges shall be guided so far as practicable
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); JWR, 15 FMSHRC at 787. We have also observed
that default is a harsh remedy and that, if the defaulting party can make a showing of good cause
for a failure to timely respond, the case may be reopened and appropriate proceedings on the
merits permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).
The record indicates that the proposed assessment was delivered on December 22, 2011,
and became a final order of the Commission on January 23, 2012. Duke’s asserts that its former
employee, who was not authorized to sign for packages, signed for the proposed assessment.
Duke’s states that it found the proposed assessment under a box on a workbench. The Secretary
does not oppose the request to reopen, and urges the operator to take steps to ensure that future
penalty contests are timely filed.
Having reviewed Duke’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of justice,
we hereby reopen this matter and remand it to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further
proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part
2700. Accordingly, consistent with Rule 28, the Secretary shall file a petition for assessment of
penalty within 45 days of the date of this order. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.
/s/ Mary Lu Jordan
Mary Lu Jordan, Chair
/s/Michael G. Young
Michael G. Young, Commissioner
/s/ Patrick K. Nakamura
Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner
Distribution:
John Duquette, Jr.
Duke’s Sand & Gravel,
101 Grave St.,
Adams, MA 01220
W. Christian Schumann, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220
Arlington, VA 22209-2296
Melanie Garris
Office of Civil Penalty Compliance
MSHA
U.S. Dept. of Labor
1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209-3939
Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick
Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
601 New Jersey Avenue, N. W., Suite 9500
Washington, D.C. 20001-2021
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 2012. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.