Secretary of Labor v. Milestone Materials Division of Mathy Construction

Plain-English summary

Milestone Materials asked the Commission to reopen a penalty case after a show-cause order became a default order. Its attorney filed the answer one day late after returning from two weeks away from the office, and the Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission treated the internal delay as an administrative mistake but advised the company to adopt procedures for handling orders when counsel is unavailable. It reopened the proceeding, vacated the default, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: No specific safety standard identified in the release
• Outcome: The default order was vacated, and the penalty proceeding was reopened and remanded.
• Key point: A one-day delay caused by counsel's absence was excused, with a warning to establish reliable order-processing procedures.

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.

MILESTONE
MATERIALS DIVISION

OF
MATHY CONSTRUCTION

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. LAKE 2019-0360

A.C.
No. 47-03449-497534

BEFORE:  Rajkovich,
Chairman; Althen and Traynor, 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. (2012) (“Mine Act”). On April 16, 2020, the Commission received
from Milestone Materials Division of Mathy Construction (“Milestone”) a motion
seeking to reopen a penalty assessment proceeding and relieve it from the
Default Order entered against it.

On
December 9, 2019, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued an Order to Show
Cause in response to Milestone’s perceived failure to answer the Secretary of
Labor’s October 8, 2019, Petition for Assessment of Civil Penalty. By its
terms, the Order to Show Cause was deemed a Default Order on December 30, 2019,
when it appeared that the operator had not filed an answer within 30 days.     

Milestone filed an answer one day after
the Order became final. Milestone asserts that the answer was inadvertently filed
late because counsel was out of the office for the two weeks following the
issuance of the Show Cause Order. Counsel became aware of the Order upon his
return to the office on December 31, and promptly filed an answer. [1]
The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen, but urges the operator to
take all steps necessary to ensure that future penalty assessments the operator
wishes to contest are contested in a timely manner, and that such contests are
properly filed.                                        

The
Judge’s jurisdiction in this matter terminated when the default occurred. 29
C.F.R.  § 2700.69(b). Under the Mine Act and the Commission’s procedural rules,
relief from a judge’s decision may be sought by filing a petition for
discretionary review within 30 days of its issuance. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2)(A)(i);
29 C.F.R. § 2700.70(a). If the Commission does not direct review within 40 days
of a decision’s issuance, it becomes a final decision of the Commission. 30
U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). Consequently, the Judge’s order here has become a final
decision of the Commission.         

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”); Jim
Walter Res., Inc. , 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993). 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 will be permitted. See Coal Prep.
Servs., Inc. , 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

Having
reviewed Milestone’s request and the Secretary’s
response, we find the operator’s answer was untimely due to an internal
delay in processing the Order to Show Cause, i.e., an administrative mistake. To
prevent repetition of such a mistake, however, procedures should be put in
place to ensure that future orders are timely received and processed even when
counsel of record is unavailable.

In
the interest of justice, we hereby reopen the proceeding and vacate the Default
Order. Accordingly, this case is remanded 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.

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco
M. Rajkovich, Jr., Chairman

/s/
William I. Althen

William
I. Althen, Commissioner

/s/
Arthur R. Traynor, III

Arthur R. Traynor, III, Commissioner

Distribution (e-mail):

Josh
Schultz, Esq.

Law
Office of Adele L. Abrams, P.C.

[email protected]

Emily
Scott, Esq.

Office
of the Solicitor

[email protected]

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glenn Voisin

Federal
Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

[email protected]

Melanie
Garris

Office
of Civil Penalty Compliance

Mine
Safety and Health Administration

[email protected]

[1] Milestone alternatively
asserts that the penalty contest was timely filed, noting that the Order to
Show Cause was sent by certified mail and that “[w]hen a party serves a
pleading by a method of delivery resulting in other than same-day service, the
due date for party action in response is extended 5 additional calendar days.” 29
C.F.R. § 2700.8(b). However, as indicated by the plain language, this extension
applies only to responses to party filings, not responses to orders issued by
Commission Judges.