Secretary of Labor obo James McGaughran v. Lehigh Cement Company, LLC

Plain-English summary

The Secretary asked the Judge to enforce James McGaughran's economic-reinstatement order by requiring Lehigh Cement to pay another $12,000 under its annual incentive plan. The request was filed in the discrimination merits docket rather than the separate temporary-reinstatement docket. The Commission was also reviewing the reinstatement order, which temporarily removed the Judge's jurisdiction over that proceeding. Judge Priscilla Rae therefore denied the motion without reaching enforcement on the merits. She added that, even with jurisdiction, she would have treated the discretionary incentive payment as outside the order's covered benefits.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 C.F.R. § 2700.45(e)(4)
• Outcome: The Secretary's motion to enforce payment of the additional incentive amount was denied.
• Key point: A Judge cannot enforce a temporary-reinstatement order while Commission appellate review has displaced the Judge's jurisdiction over that proceeding.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

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

WASHINGTON, DC
20004-1710

TELEPHONE:
202-434-9950 / FAX: 202-434-9949

July 14, 2020

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA),

on
behalf of JAMES MCGAUGHRAN,

Complainant,

v.

LEHIGH
CEMENT COMPANY, LLC,

Respondent.

DISCRIMINATION
PROCEEDING

Docket
No. PENN
2020-0015-DM

Mine: Nazareth
Plant I

Mine
ID: 36-00190

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE
ORDER

Before: Judge Rae

This matter comes before the
Court upon the Secretary of Labor’s (“Secretary”) Motion to Enforce Order
(“Motion”). For the reasons set forth below, the Secretary’s Motion is denied.

I.          
BACKGROUND

On
August 20, 2019, I issued an Order Granting Temporary Economic Reinstatement
(“Order”) ordering Lehigh Cement Company, LLC (“Respondent”) to economically reinstate
James McGaughran in accordance with all terms set forth in the parties’ Joint
Motion to Approve Settlement Regarding Temporary Reinstatement. I issued
the Order in the temporary reinstatement proceeding, Docket No. PENN 2019-0144.
Subsequently, I was assigned this discrimination proceeding—Docket No. PENN
2020-0015—which concerns the merits of McGaughran’s discrimination complaint. I
set a hearing date of June 2-4, 2020 for the discrimination proceeding. Subsequently,
I postponed the hearing until October 27-30, 2020 due to COVID-19.

On
May 11, 2020, Respondent filed a Motion for Tolling of Economic Temporary
Reinstatement. On May 22, 2020, I issued the Order Tolling Temporary
Reinstatement under the temporary reinstatement docket, Docket No. PENN
2019-0144. The Secretary filed a Petition for Discretionary Review of my Order
Tolling Temporary Reinstatement, which the Commission granted on July 1, 2020. The
matter is currently pending before the Commission.

II.          
DISCUSSION

The Secretary’s Motion alleges that
Respondent is not honoring the Order. Specifically, the Secretary alleges that
Respondent failed to pay McGaughran the entire amount he is owed under
Respondent’s Annual Incentive Plan (“Incentive Plan”). The Incentive Plan provides
Respondent’s eligible employees with “an incentive compensation opportunity for
improving operating performance within their areas of responsibility during the
‘plan year.’” Mot. to Enforce Order Ex. 1, at 1. The Secretary seeks an order
requiring Respondent to pay McGaughran $12,000.00, which the Secretary claims represents
the remainder of the Incentive Plan payment that Respondent has withheld from
McGaughran. [1]

Conversely, Respondent claims it is
in full compliance with the Order. Respondent argues that payments under the Incentive
Plan are a discretionary “bonus,” not a “benefit” that McGaughran is entitled
to under the Order. Resp’t’s Opp’n to Mot. to Enforce Order, at 3-5. Although
Respondent made a partial Incentive Plan payment to McGaughran, Respondent now maintains
that the Order does not require Respondent to make any Incentive Plan
payment to McGaughran. Id. at 6-7. For that reason, Respondent seeks an
order requiring McGaughran to return the partial Incentive Plan payment to
Respondent.

Ultimately, I cannot resolve the
issues raised by the Secretary’s Motion at the present time because the Motion
is not properly before me and because I lack jurisdiction over the temporary
reinstatement proceeding. The Secretary filed
the instant Motion under the incorrect docket. The instant discrimination
proceeding solely concerns the merits of McGaughran’s
discrimination claim, not issues addressing compliance with the Order. Rather,
the matter of enforcing compliance with the Order would be properly filed under
Docket No. PENN 2019-0144, the temporary reinstatement proceeding.

However, this Court would lack jurisdiction
to address the substance of the Secretary’s Motion even if it were filed under
the temporary reinstatement docket. Per Commission Rule 45(e), “ [ a ] Judge’s order temporarily reinstating a
miner is not a final decision within the meaning of [ Section ]
2700.69, and[,] except during appellate review of such order by the
Commission or courts , the Judge shall retain jurisdiction over the
temporary reinstatement proceeding.” 29 C.F.R. § 2700.45(e)(4)
(emphasis added); see also BR&D Enters., Inc .,

23 FMSHRC 386, 389 (Apr. 2001). During the Commission’s review of the Order, the
Court does not retain jurisdiction over the temporary reinstatement proceeding. [2]
29 C.F.R.

§ 2700.45(e)(4).

Therefore, I deny the Secretary’s
Motion to Enforce Order because the Motion is not properly before me and
because I lack jurisdiction over the temporary reinstatement proceeding pending
review by the Commission.

ORDER

The
Secretary’s Motion to Enforce Order is DENIED .

/s/ Priscilla M. Rae

Priscilla
M. Rae

Administrative
Law Judge

Distribution:

M. del
Pilar Castillo, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 170 S.
Independence Mall West, Suite 630E, Philadelphia, PA 19106, [email protected]

Margaret
Lopez, Carin Burford, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART P.C., 1909 K
Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20006, [email protected] , [email protected]

[1] From 2016
through 2019, Respondent paid McGaughran an incentive payment that ranged from
15% to 17% of his annual salary. McGaughran Decl. ¶ 5. The Incentive Payment
Respondent paid McGaughran in April 2020 represented approximately 7% of his
annual salary. Id. ¶¶ 6, 7.

[2] Even if I
had jurisdiction, I would find that payments under the Incentive Plan are not a
“benefit” that McGaughran is entitled to under the Order. Payments under the Incentive
Plan are solely at the discretion of Respondent to award. Further, Section VI.D
of the Incentive Plan states that “incentive payments . . . shall not be deemed
a part of a participant’s regular, recurring compensation for purposes of
calculating payments or benefits from any Company benefit plan or severance
program.” Mot. to Enforce Order Ex. 1, at 7.