Secretary of Labor v. Duininck, Inc.
Secretary of Labor v. Duininck, Inc. (FMSHRC LAKE 2022-0058): Deliberate payment barred reopening
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2023, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Duininck paid $1,359 for all three citations and sent a letter expressly stating that it did not intend to contest them. The operator later asked the Commission to reopen the case, but still did not seek to contest the citations and instead wanted to discuss its safety practices with MSHA. The Commission found no mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or other reason to undo the final order. It held that the payment was a deliberate choice by a knowledgeable operator. The Commission denied reopening and noted that it could not order MSHA to hold a conference.
Decision snapshot
- Cited authority: 30 C.F.R. § 100.6(a)
- Outcome: The request to reopen was denied.
- Key point: A deliberate, informed payment cannot be reopened merely to obtain a safety-practices conference with MSHA.
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.
DUININCK,
INC.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket
No. LAKE 2022-0058
A.C.
No. 21-03663-540443
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”). The record reveals that the proposed
assessment was delivered to the Operator on August 30, 2021. On September 22,
2021, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) received full payment
of $1,359.00 for all three citations by a check dated September 9, 2021. A “To
Whom It May Concern” letter from the operator accompanied the check. The
signatory to the letter stated that he was an experienced and knowledgeable safety
professional. The letter expressly disclaims any intention to contest the
citation and demonstrates the payment of the penalty was a conscious payment by
a knowledgeable operator.
Subsequently,
the operator filed a letter requesting reopening. Even there, however, the
operator disclaims any desire to contest the citation. Instead, it asked for an
opportunity to discuss its safety practices with MSHA.
30
C.F.R. § 100.6(a) provides MSHA with sole discretion to grant a request for a
conference where issues may be discussed. The Commission grants reopening in
accordance with the factors set forth in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See 29 C.F.R. 2700.1(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The
operator does not allege a mistake, inadvertent conduct, excusable neglect, or
other reason justifying relief that led to its payment and the proposed penalty
assessment becoming a final order. The motion reflects that the operator made
the deliberate choice to pay the penalties after receiving the penalty
assessment rather than to contest the penalties before a Commission
Administrative Law Judge.
Accordingly, the request to reopen is
DENIED. [1]
/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:
Terry
P. Keenan
Safety
Manager
Duininck
Inc.
408
6 th Street
Prinsburg,
MN 56281
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
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
Melanie
Garris
USDOL/MSHA, OAASEI/CPCO
201 12th Street South, Suite 401
Arlington, VA 22202
Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glynn F. Voisin
Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N
Washington, DC 20004-1710
[1] We further note
that the Commission cannot order MSHA to have a conference with an operator.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 2023. 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.