Search form

Citing ‘Questionable Practices,’ Judge Raises Coal Contractor’s Fine

  • July 28, 2015

An administrative law judge for the Federal Mine Safety and Health Commission raised a proposed fine against a West Virginia trucking company by nearly $10,000 after questioning the credibility of a company supervisor and its mechanic and determining the firm had either misplaced or destroyed potentially compromising pre-operational (pre-op) examination records about the condition of brakes on a haul truck. Secretary of Labor v. Lincoln Leasing Co., Inc., No. WEVA 2012-1783 (FMSHRC July 13, 2015).

In February 2012, an inspector for the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) overheard a conversation between a driver for Lincoln Leasing Co., Inc. and the maintenance foreman for the coal operator for whom Lincoln was working as an independent contractor. The driver told the foreman the rear brakes on his truck were in such poor condition that he was reluctant to drive the vehicle downhill. He also showed the foreman a page from his pre-op exam checklist noting that the truck needed new back brakes.

The exchange prompted the MSHA representative to inspect the vehicle. The truck failed a brake function test and the inspector’s visual examination of the rear brakes showed what the inspector described as “severe deterioration of the driver’s side rear axle brake shoe friction [pad].” The driver later testified that, after a fuse blew out as he was ascending a grade, he had been unable to stop the truck from rolling backward until it came to rest in a ditch.

The inspector cited Lincoln under Section 104(d)(1), a provision of the Mine Act allowing MSHA to cite for unwarrantable failure, which is aggravated conduct beyond ordinary negligence. The evidence revealed the condition had existed for more than one shift ‒ the driver testified he had mentioned the problem to his supervisor about six times over the previous two weeks ‒ and Lincoln’s supervisor made no attempt to repair the brakes even after being told they were defective. Administrative Law Judge L. Zane Gill on July 13 upheld the citation as written.

Because pre-op inspection records for the truck were not available for a period prior to three days before the citation was written and could not be produced, MSHA moved for an adverse inference ruling. Finding that Lincoln had “engaged in questionable practices regarding its document retention and production in this case,” Gill granted MSHA’s motion.

“It is troubling and highly suspect that Lincoln Leasing was able to produce reports for only three days, yet its pre-operational records were kept in a bound 30-day book. Despite this, Lincoln Leasing claims that no other reports could be found,” the judge explained.

In a footnote, Gill also paraphrased what he described as “some very disturbing” testimony by the driver. According to the judge, on the day the citation was written, the driver told his supervisor he did not want to use the truck because the brakes were bad. In response, the supervisor told the driver that if he didn’t want to operate the vehicle, he should go home.  “[Driver] took that to mean that if he did not haul coal he would be fired,” Gill said. Gill noted that the contractor also tried to discredit the driver’s credibility. Instead, Gill discredited the testimony of Lincoln’s supervisor and its mechanic because they “made multiple inconsistent and factually unsupported statements.”

MSHA proposed a $45,708 fine, but Gill raised it to $55,000.

The inspector also wrote an order under Mine Act Section 104(d)(1) after observing that the backup alarm on the truck was inoperable and determining that the condition had been noted on the pre-op exam record for that day. However, at the hearing, the pre-op form did not show the alarm was not working. Although both the inspector and the driver inferred the form had been tampered with, the conflicting evidence led Gill to conclude the alarm was functional at the time of the pre-op inspection. He lowered the level of negligence from high to moderate and dismissed the unwarrantable failure classification by reducing the order to a routine citation under Section 104(a). He also cut MSHA’s proposed $7,176 fine to $2,161.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

January 23, 2019

U.S. House Committee to Focus on Workforce Protections

January 23, 2019

Signaling a renewed emphasis on workforce protections at the opening of the 116th Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives has changed the name of its committee with jurisdiction over labor matters back to the Committee on Education and Labor. It was called the Committee on Education and the Workforce when Republicans held the... Read More

January 7, 2019

2019: The Year Ahead for Employers

January 7, 2019

Over the past year, state and local governments responded in a variety of ways to national policy, and the midterm elections painted a picture of what’s in store for employers in 2019 and beyond. Jackson Lewis’ annual report outlines upcoming issues, trends, legislation and regulations employers need to be aware of in the coming year... Read More

January 2, 2019

Retail Industry Workplace Law Update – Winter 2019

January 2, 2019

Class Action Trends Report The latest issue of our quarterly report on developments in class action litigation focuses on “joint employers” and covers the following topics: Are you my employer? A patchwork of tests Only in California Prevention pointer Read the Report … OSHA: Certain Safety Incentive Programs, Post... Read More

Related Practices