Search form

Mine Commission Upholds Safety Agency’s Demand for Records in Split Decision

  • June 13, 2016

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission has upheld a judge’s decision favoring the government over a Western Kentucky coal operator who had refused to honor a directive to provide federal authorities with a roster of its employees. However, two commissioners dissented, asserting the government trampled on the operator’s constitutional rights. Sec’y of Labor – MSHA v. Warrior Coal, LLC, Docket Nos. KENT 2011-1259-R, 2011-1260-R and 2012-705 (May 17, 2016).

The majority relied heavily upon a 2012 Commission decision, upheld by an appeals court, which said the Mine Safety and Health Administration had authority to cite Illinois operator Big Ridge, Inc. for the coal producer’s refusal to provide MSHA with medical records and payroll information. MSHA had sought the documents to facilitate an agency audit of the operator’s accident, injury, and illness records.

The Kentucky case was sparked by an inspector’s enforcement action in May 2011 against Warrior Coal, LLC after the inspector allegedly found multiple unsafe roof and wall conditions at the company’s Cardinal Mine. Based on MSHA’s suspicion the conditions had existed over several shifts, the agency launched a special investigation to try and determine if liability for the alleged problems extended to corporate officials. To that end, the agency directed Warrior to supply it with the names and contact information of every mine employee. Warrior balked, triggering an MSHA citation for failure to provide the information. In the face of continued operator resistance, MSHA then issued a failure to abate order. Warrior appealed.

In 2013, a judge ruled for MSHA, calling the agency’s request “reasonable and for a legitimate government purpose.” The judge relied, in relevant part, on Section 103(h) of the Mine Act, which requires operators to “provide such information, as the Secretary [of Labor] . . . may reasonably require from time to time to enable him to perform his functions under this Act.” The judge’s final order included a $555 fine.

On appeal to the five-member Commission, Warrior argued that Section 103 does not give MSHA authority to compel Warrior to provide contact information on its employees to MSHA investigators. In addition, Warrior contended that the Commission’s Big Ridge decision was limited to the “relevant and necessary” language in Part 50.41, a regulatory provision addressing verification of reports.

The Commission majority disagreed. It noted that the appeals court in Big Ridge did not restrict itself to the language of Part 50; rather, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (in Chicago) held that Section 103(h) gave MSHA wide latitude, so long as its demand represented a reasonable attempt to fulfill the agency’s statutory responsibilities. Agreeing with the judge, the commissioners said MSHA’s request to Warrior was reasonable. Warrior was directed to pay the fine and, unless it had already done so, to provide the information as well.

The Commission majority observed the Seventh Circuit stated that although the Mine Act does not give MSHA administrative subpoena authority during an investigation, MSHA’s power to request information under Section 103(h) amounts to an administrative subpoena. “Our determination that the Secretary’s request is reasonable is fully consistent with the broad authority the federal courts have accorded agencies’ enforcement of administrative subpoenas,” the majority wrote.

In dissent, Commissioner Michael Young said the majority’s decision was based on a “mistaken assumption.” Congress, he said, gave MSHA no such authority, and what is more, lawmakers also designed the law “to preclude any inferences in favor of that power.” The Commissioner seemed especially troubled that the request was an “unbounded inquisition” that appeared to be a classic – and forbidden – “fishing expedition” into the operator’s affairs. Pointing to Donovan v. Dewey, a 1981 Supreme Court decision involving inspections under the Mine Act, Young contended that the agency’s request “disregards Donovan and its constitutional underpinnings” under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects businesses against what the Court called “‘unbridled discretion [of] executive and administrative officers.’”

Commissioner William Althen concurred with the majority opinion, but noted separately that Warrior was not offered a hearing before being assessed a proposed civil penalty for failing to comply with the roster demand. “The right to a fair hearing at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner is a fundamental requirement of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment,” Althen said. He suggested constitutional concerns could be assuaged if in the future MSHA issued a technical violation over a demand for documents, followed by an expedited hearing for the operator on the matter.

Ironically, despite its insistence it needed employees’ contact information to complete its special investigation, MSHA apparently finished its corporate liability inquiry without ever receiving the information, according to Althen. He added that if the case were analogous to an administrative subpoena (as the majority contended), then when MSHA closed its investigation, the motion the agency made to compel compliance with a subpoena would have become moot. The outcome also means Warrior must pay a penalty for a citation that was rendered worthless when MSHA closed its inquiry.

Jackson Lewis can provide an in-depth analysis of this ruling and its implications for those under MSHA jurisdiction.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

January 29, 2018

Fitness Industry Workplace Law Update – Winter 2018

January 29, 2018

Welcome to our premiere issue! Our goal is to keep fitness industry clients and contacts informed about employment and labor law issues that may affect your organizations. We hope you find this newsletter valuable and invite you to share it with interested colleagues and contacts. In this issue, we provide a brief summary of hot... Read More

January 24, 2018

2018: The Year Ahead for Employers

January 24, 2018

An executive summary of recent changes in workplace law and a look ahead to 2018. Read More

November 16, 2017

Transportation Department Expands Drug Testing Panel to Include Certain ‘Semi-Synthetic’ Opioids

November 16, 2017

Employers regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) should revise their drug and alcohol testing policies to conform to new DOT regulations that added four “semi-synthetic” opioid drugs to the DOT drug testing panel. The new regulations go into effect on January 1, 2018. DOT announced in a rule published in the Federal... Read More

Related Practices