Sixth Circuit: Mine Operator not Required to Provide Temporary Reinstatement for Miner Pending Outcome of Individual Action

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently provided insight on a matter of first impression in North Fork Coal Corporation v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. The issue considered was whether the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the “Mine Act”), as amended, 30 U.S.C. §§ 801–965, mandates that an employee's temporary reinstatement continue after the Secretary of Labor (“Secretary”) determines that his complaint lacks merit.

In this case, after the mine operator fired the miner, he filed a discrimination complaint ("MSHA complaint") with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration pursuant to §105(c) of the Mine Act alleging he was terminated for making safety-related complaints. The Secretary found that the complaint was not frivolously brought, and filed an application for temporary reinstatement of the miner. The parties jointly agreed to economic reinstatement for the miner, foregoing his return to the mine. Following the completion of her investigation of the miner's termination, the Secretary informed the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that she would not be pursuing the discrimination complaint, which prompted the ALJ to issue an order dissolving the miner's temporary reinstatement.

Several months later, however, the miner filed a discrimination action on his own behalf pursuant to §105(c)(3) of the Mine Act. The mine operator challenged the claim, given the prior history, but in a split decision, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission reversed the ALJ order and held that temporary reinstatement was required until the miner's individual action was resolved by a final order. The mine operator thereafter filed a Petition for Review before the Sixth Circuit.

The Sixth Circuit held that the Mine Act did not require such continued temporary reinstatement. The Court relied on the language of the Mine Act in reaching its decision and concluded that the phrase “pending final order on the complaint” does not have a plain meaning because it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. The Court explained that the operative words of the phrase at issue are “order” and “complaint.” The parties agreed that the term “order” referred to the final order of the Commission. However, when the Secretary decided not to pursue the miner's claim before the Commission, § 815(c)(3) refers to that decision as a “determination,” not an “order.” Accordingly, when the Secretary found that a violation of the Mine Act had not occurred, there is no “final order” triggering the dissolution of temporary reinstatement. To complicate things even further, the Court found that when an individual employee files a matter, it is called an "action," not a "complaint." 

Thus, in sum, the Sixth Circuit held that the statutory language, legislative history, and other relevant factors demonstrated Congress’ judgment that, once the Secretary determines that no violation of the Mine Act has occurred, the public interest in mandating continued reinstatement is substantially lessened. Therefore, upon such determination, a miner is no longer entitled to temporary reinstatement.

Mine operators must be prepared to properly handle and document work refusals by miners. It is expected that Section 105(c) cases will continue to have a high priority and that MSHA will vigorously prosecute any colorable case of discrimination. The temporary reinstatement hearing is a strategic point in any defense of a Section 105(c) case.