Secretary of Labor obo Robert Baumann v. MOSenecaManufacturer, LLC d/b/a American Tripoli
Secretary of Labor obo Robert Baumann v. American Tripoli (FMSHRC CENT 2023-0251): Review directed on discrimination and interference law
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2024, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Commission directed review on its own initiative of the ALJ's May 23, 2024 decision in Robert Baumann's case against American Tripoli. It identified a possible legal error concerning the meaning and application of the Mine Act's discrimination and interference protections. The review would also address whether those provisions are ambiguous and whether the Secretary's interpretation should receive deference. The order required briefing and did not decide the merits.
Decision snapshot
- Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(c) and 823(d)(2)(B); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.71 and 2700.75(a)
- Outcome: Sua sponte review was granted on the discrimination, interference, ambiguity, and deference issues.
- Key point: The Commission called for review of how section 105(c)'s discrimination and interference provisions should be interpreted and applied.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW
COMMISSION
1331 PENNSYLVANIA
AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004‑1710
:
SECRETARY OF LABOR, :
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
:
o/b/o ROBERT BAUMANN
:
:
v. : Docket
No. CENT 2023-0251-DM
:
MOSENECAMANUFACTURER, LLC
:
d/b/a
AMERICAN TRIPOLI :
:
DIRECTION FOR REVIEW
Pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 71, 29 C.F.R. §
2700.71, and section 113(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2)(B), the undersigned Commissioners vote to grant sua
sponte review of the Administrative Law Judge’s May 23, 2024 decision issued
in the above-named case.
Review is directed on the grounds that the decision
may be contrary to law. Specifically, we order review of whether the Judge’s decision is contrary to law regarding the meanings
and applications of the “discrimination” and “interference” provisions in complaints
brought pursuant to §105(c) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(c), and whether
the provisions are ambiguous and deserving of deference to the Secretary’s
interpretation.
The parties shall file briefs in accordance with 29
C.F.R. § 2700.75(a).
/s/ Timothy J. Baker
Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner
/s/ Moshe Z. Marvit
Moshe Z. Marvit, Commissioner
Distribution
List:
Russell
Tidaback
Jordon
Tidaback
American
Tripoli
222
Oneida Street
Seneca,
MO 64865
Laura
O’Reilly, Esq.
U.S.
Department of Labor
2300
Main Street, Suite 10100
Kansas
City, MO 64108
Elaine
M. Smith, Esq.
Quinlan
B. Moll, Esq.
U.S.
Department of Labor
2300
Main St., Suite 10100
Kansas
City, MO 64108
Robert
Baumann
Susannah
M. Maltz, Esq.
U.S.
Department of Labor
Office
of the Solicitor
U.S.
Department of Labor
Mine
Safety and Health Division
201
12th Street South, Suite 401
Arlington, VA 22202-5452
Emily
Toler Scott, Esq.
Counsel
for Appellate Litigation
Office
of the Solicitor
U.S.
Department of Labor
Mine
Safety and Health Division
201
12th Street South, Suite 401
Arlington, VA 22202-5452
April
Nelson, Esq.
Associate
Solicitor
Office
of the Solicitor
U.S.
Department of Labor
Mine
Safety and Health Division
201
12th Street South, Suite 401
Arlington,
VA 22202-5452
Melanie
Garris
U.S.
Department of Labor
Office
of Civil Penalty Compliance
Mine
Safety and Health Review Commission
201
12th Street South, Suite 401
Arlington,
VA 222-2-5452
Administrative
Law Judge William B. Moran
Federal
Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Office
of the Chief Administrative Law Judge
1331
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 520N
Washington,
DC 20004-1710
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
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 2024. 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.