Secretary of Labor v. Morton Salt, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Morton Salt's environmental, health, and safety manager marked four citations for contest but did not mail or email the completed assessment form. MSHA had already told the company that the citations were no longer eligible for a conference and that it needed to return the assessment form to contest them. The Commission noted that Morton had received reopening relief twice before for assessment-processing mistakes. Morton promised another process change but did not identify the corrective steps. The Commission found an unreliable system and denied reopening with prejudice.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. §§ 814(e)(1) and 815(a)
• Outcome: The motion to reopen four citations was denied with prejudice.
• Key point: Completing a contest form is not enough when it is never sent, especially after earlier reopening cases reveal recurring process failures.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
DC 20004-1710

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA)

                    v.

MORTON
SALT, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. CENT 2023-0218

A.C.
No. 16-00970-574494

BEFORE:
Jordan, Chair; Althen, Rajkovich, and Baker, 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. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On June 23, 2023, [1]
the Commission received from Morton Salt, Inc. (“Morton”), 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 orders, the Commission has found guidance
in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which the
Commission may relieve a party from a final order of the Commission on the
basis of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or other reason justifying
relief. 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).

        Records

of the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”)
indicate that the proposed assessment was delivered on April 11, 2023. On May
11, 2023, MSHA received partial payment in the amount of $3,030.00 for 12 of
the 16 citations listed on the proposed assessment. On May 17, 2023, the
assessment became a final order of the Commission with respect to the penalties
of the remaining four citations. On July 3, 2023, MSHA sent the operator a
delinquency notice.

Morton states that on April 26, 2023, it
checked the boxes on the proposed assessment to indicate that it was contesting
Citation Nos. 9676699, 9674919, 9674924, and 9674925. The operator maintains
that it had also sent a conference request on March 3, 2023, for Citation Nos.
9674924 and 9674925 but received no response. Morton submits that although its
EHS Manager timely completed the contest form, he inadvertently failed to mail
or email the form. It contends that it will make the required change to its
process to be sure that this error does not occur again. The operator requests
that the Commission reopen the penalty assessment to permit Morton to contest
the four citations.

        The

Secretary opposes the operator’s motion to reopen. The Secretary argues that
Morton has failed to timely contest proposed assessments in the past, and that
the repeated failures indicate that the operator has an unreliable system for
processing assessments. The Secretary further disputes that MSHA failed to
respond to its conference request. She also notes that the operator has reason
to pay particular attention to its citations and penalties because the
operator’s mine has been notified that it has a pattern of violations and two
of the citations (Nos. 9674924 and 9674925) were designated as significant and
substantial in nature. [2]

Consistent with the Secretary’s submission,
the Commission has previously reopened penalty assessments issued to Morton
that became final due to the operator’s inadvertence or mistake in processing its
proposed assessments. Morton Salt, Inc. , 44 FMSHRC 533 (Aug. 2022); Morton
Salt, Inc. , 45 FMSHRC , No. CENT 2022-0237 (May 16, 2023). The
Commission has recognized that repeated motions to reopen may indicate an
inadequate or unreliable internal processing system. Rockwell Mining, LLC ,
45 FMSHRC , Nos.
WEVA 2022-0467, et al.
(June 29, 2023). Although Morton has stated that it will take action to prevent
such a reoccurrence in the future, it has not identified the steps it will take.

In addition, it appears that MSHA
responded to the operator’s request for a conference and provided information
about contest procedures. An attachment to the Secretary’s opposition reveals
that on April 18, 2023, the operator sent MSHA an email acknowledging that it
had received the proposed assessment on April 11, 2023, that it had 30 days to
contest the citations on the assessment, and that the operator had requested a
conference on Citation No. 9674919 on March 8, 2023, and on Citation Nos.
9674924, and 9674925 on March 16. MSHA responded by email dated April 25, 2023,
that those citations had been assessed and were not eligible for a conference,
and that if the operator wished to contest the citations, it would “need to
select the citation on the assessment form and return the contested assessment
form to the assessment office.” Attach. D.

        The

Commission has made it clear that where a failure to contest a proposed
assessment results from an inadequate or unreliable internal processing system,
the operator has not established grounds for reopening the assessment. Shelter
Creek Capital, LLC , 34 FMSHRC 3053, 3054 (Dec. 2012); Oak Grove Res. ,
LLC, 33 FMSHRC 103. 104 (Feb. 2011); Double Bonus Coal Co ., 32 FMSHRC
1155, 1156 (Sept. 2010); Highland Mining Co ., 31 FMSHRC 1313, 1315 (Nov.
2009); Pinnacle Mining Co ., 30 FMSHRC 1066, 1067 (Dec. 2008); Pinnacle
Mining Co. , 30 FMSHRC 1061, 1062 (Dec. 2008).

We find that Morton has not asserted good
cause for its failure to timely contest the proposed penalties. See Marfork
Coal Co. , 45 FMSHRC ___, No. WEVA 2023-0043 (June 23, 2023) (denying a
motion to reopen when the operator neglected to fix problems with its internal
procedures). The motion is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary
Lu Jordan, Chair

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen,
Commissioner

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.,
Commissioner

/s/ Timothy J. Baker

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner

Distribution:

Donna
Vetrano Pryor, Esq.

Husch
Blackwell LLP

1801
Wewatta Street, Suite 100

Denver,
CO 80202

[email protected]

April
Nelson, Esq.

Associate
Solicitor

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S.
Department of Labor

Division
of Mine Safety and Health

201
12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington,
VA 22202

[email protected]

Emily
Toler Scott, Esq.

Counsel
for Appellate Litigation

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S.
Department of Labor

Division
of Mine Safety and Health

201
12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington,
VA 22202

[email protected]

Melanie
Garris

USDOL/MSHA, OAASEI/CPCO

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202

[email protected]

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glynn F. Voisin

Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission

Office
of the Chief Administrative Law Judge

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

[1] On July 19, 2023,
Morton filed an Amended Motion to Reopen correcting a referenced citation
number from 9673919 to 9674919.

[2] Section 104(e)(1) of
the Mine Act provides that if an operator has a pattern of violations of
mandatory health or safety standards which are of such nature as could
significantly and substantially contribute to the cause and effect of health or
safety hazards, it shall be given written notice that such a pattern exists. If,
within 90 days following issuance of the POV notice, an inspector cites the
operator for a significant and substantial violation, then MSHA may issue a
withdrawal order under section 104(e) of the Act. 30 U.S.C. § 814(e)(1).