Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-09563/USCOURTS-ca10-94-09563-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Respondent
Secretary Of Labor
Respondent
Thunder Basin Coal Company
Petitioner

Document Text:

PUBLISH FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

THUNDER BASIN COAL COMPANY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

REVIEW COMMISSION; and SECRETARY 

OF LABOR, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JUN 0 'i' 1995 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

No. 94-9563 

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE FEDERAL 

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

(F.M.S.H.R.C. No. WEST 94-238-R) 

Submitt~d on the briefs: 

Thomas F. Linn of Atlantic Richfield Company, Denver, Colorado, 

Timothy M. Biddle, Thomas C. Means, and J. Michael Klise of 

Crowell and Moring, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. 

Thomas S. Williamson, Jr., Solicitor of Labor, Edward P. Clair, 

Associate Solicitor, W. Christian Schumann, Counsel, Appellate 

Litigation, Colleen A. Geraghty, Attorney, United States 

Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Arlington, Virginia, 

for Respondents. 

Before EBEL and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and KANE,* District 

Judge. 

*Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 1 
KANE, District Judge. 

Thunder Basin Coal Company (Thunder Basin) brings this 

petition for review of an order of the Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Review Commission (Commission) sustaining a citation issued 

to Thunder Basin arising from an alleged violation of the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the Mine Act or the Act). 

Because we find that the Commission's order is based on a 

permissible construction of the statute, we affirm.l 

In 1977, Congress passed the Mine Act to improve and promote 

health and safety in the nation's mines. 30 U. S. C. §§ 801-962. 

The Act requires the Secretary of Labor to make periodic 

unannounced inspections of the nation's mines, id. at § 813(a), 

and further provides that a representative of the mine operator 

and a representative authorized by his miners shall be given an 

opportunity to accompany the inspector on his inspections of the 

mines, id. at § 813(f) .2 Regulations promulgated under this 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 Section 813(f) provides: 

[A] representative of the operator and a representative 

authorized by his miners shall be given an opportunity 

to accompany the Secretary or his authorized 

representative during the physical inspection of any 

(continued on next page) 

2 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 2 
section define a miners' representative as "[a]ny person or 

organization which represents two or more miners at a coal or 

other mine for the purposes of the Act." 30 C.F.R. § 40.l(b) (1). 

At the heart of this dispute is the regulation requiring the mine 

owner, after being notified that two or more miners have 

designated a representative, to post the designation on the 

miners' bulletin board. Id. at § 40.4. 

Thunder Basin operates the Black Thunder Mine, a large 

nonunionized surface coal mine in Wyoming. In 1990, eight of the 

mine's nonunion employees signed an authorization form designating 

two organizers of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) , who 

were not Black Thunder employees, to be their representatives. 

There is undisputed evidence that the designees hoped their status 

as miners' representatives would help further their organizing 

goals. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) informed 

Thunder Basin that it was required to post the designation form on 

the miners' bulletin board. When Thunder Basin refused to do so, 

it was cited by the mine inspector for violation of the Act.3 

(continued from previous page) 

coal or other mine . . . for the purpose of aiding such 

inspection and to participate in pre or post-inspection 

conferences held at the mine. 

3 At an earlier stage in this struggle, Thunder Basin, 

immediately upon learning of the MSHA's position regarding the 

representative of miners' form, filed a complaint for declaratory 

and injunctive relief and a motion for a temporary restraining 

order in the United States District Court for the District of 

Wyoming. The district court permanently enjoined the enforcement 

of 30 C.F.R. pt. 40 against Thunder Basin. This court reversed, 

holding that a federal district court lacks jurisdiction over 

pre-enforcement challenges to MSHA action. Thunder Basin Coal Co. 

v. Martin, 969 F.2d 970, 974-76 (lOth Cir. 1992), aff'd sub nom. 

Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. , 114 S. Ct. 771, 782 

(1994). 

3 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 3 
Pursuant to statutory procedure, Thunder Basin took its case 

before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) arguing, inter alia, that 

the designation of union agents as miners' representatives in a 

nonunion mine was an abuse of the Mine Act. The ALJ denied relief 

to Thunder Basin, holding that the Commission's decision in 

Kerr-McGee Coal Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, 15 F.M.S.H.R.C. 352, 

1993 WL 395964 (1993), aff'd, 40 F.3d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1994), 

petition for cert. filed, 63 U.S.L.W. 3773 (U.S. Apr. 14, 

1995) (No. 94-1685), controlled the disposition of the petition. 

Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 16 F.M.S.H.R.C. 

1849, 1850, 1994 WL 460108, at **1 (1994). In doing so, the ALJ 

further held that any organizational motivation of the miners' 

representatives was irrelevant. Id. at 1850-51. The Commission 

refused Thunder Basin's petition for discretionary review, thus 

making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commission. 

Thunder Basin then timely appealed to this court. 

On appeal, Thunder Basin presents three issues: (1) whether, 

under the Mine Act, paid union organizers can become miners' 

representatives at a nonunion mine; (2) whether the Commission's 

decision is in derogation of the National Labor Relations Act 

(NLRA); and (3) whether Thunder Basin's constitutional rights were 

violated by the Commission's interpretation and enforcement of the 

Mine Act. 

In reviewing the interpretation of§ 103(f) [30 U.S.C. 

§ 813(f)] asserted by the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) 

and the Commission, we are mindful of the United States 

Supreme Court's directions in Chevron. U.S.A .. Inc. v. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 

104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984). 

4 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 4 
When a court reviews an agency's construction 

of the statute which it administers, it is 

confronted with two questions. First, always, 

is the question whether Congress has directly 

spoken to the precise question at issue. If 

the intent of Congress is clear, that is the 

end of the matter; for the court, as well as 

the agency, must give effect to the 

unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. 

If, however, the court determines Congress has 

not directly addressed the precise question at 

issue, the court does not simply impose its 

own construction on the statute, as would be 

necessary in the absence of an administrative 

interpretation. Rather, if the statute is 

silent or ambiguous with respect to the 

specific issue, the question for the court is 

whether the agency's answer is based on a 

permissible construction of the statute. 

Id. at 842-43, 104 S. Ct. at 2781-82 (footnotes 

omitted) . 

We have held that an agency's interpretation of a 

statute entrusted to that agency for administration 

should be accepted if it is a reasonable one, even if 

another interpretation may exist that is equally 

reasonable. 

Utah Power & Light Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 897 F.2d 447, 449-50 

(lOth Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). 

We disagree with Thunder Basin's contention that Congress has 

clearly spoken to the issues presented by this case. The statute 

addresses neither whether nonemployee union agents can act as 

miners' representatives at a nonunion mine, nor whether that 

representative must be motivated solely by health and safety 

issues. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842 (holding that review 

standard is whether "Congress has directly spoken to the precise 

question at issue"). We, therefore, proceed to determine whether 

the Secretary's decision here is "based on a permissible 

construction of the statute." Id. at 843. 

5 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 5 
We begin by discussing the primary antecedents of this case, 

Kerr-McGee Coal Corp. v. F.M.S.H.R.C., 40 F.3d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 

1994), petition for cert. filed, 63 U.S.L.W. 3773 (U.S. Apr. 14, 

1995) (No. 94-1685), and Utah Power & Light, 897 F.2d 447. In Utah 

Power & Light, this court held that the walkaround rights 

established in§ 813(f) extend to miners' representatives who are 

not employees of the mine operator. Id. at 450-52. The mine at 

issue in Utah Power & Light was unionized, and the person seeking 

miners' representative rights was a member of the UMWA. 

In reaching its holding in Utah Power & Light, this court 

found the language of§ 813(f) dispositive. Section 813(f), as 

noted earlier, provides that "a representative authorized by [the 

operator's] miners shall be given an opportunity to accompany the 

Secretary or his authorized representative during the physical 

inspection of any coal or other mine made pursuant to the 

provisions of subsection (a) of this section." We concluded that 

"[t]his sentence confers upon the miners the right to authorize a 

representative for walkaround purposes without any limitation on 

the employment status of the representative." Utah Power & Light, 

897 F.2d at 450. Similarly, here, there is no limitation in the 

statute restricting the walkaround right to only those persons who 

are not union members or union organizers. 

Further, Utah Power & Light noted that the general health and 

safety purposes of the Mine Act can be served "by allowing both 

employees and nonemployees to act as miners' representatives for 

walkaround purposes." Id. at 452. With evidence in the record 

that the persons designated by the miners are qualified and 

6 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 6 
knowledgeable and can assist the miners in health and safety 

matters, it seems the same goal is served here regardless of the 

representatives' status as union organizers. 

The petitioner in Utah Power & Light, anticipating the issue 

presented here, argued that 11 [t]he Mine Act presents an inherent 

temptation for abuse by non-employee union representatives ... Id. 

In response to this concern we stated: 

UPL's argument ignores the fact that, as with a 

federal inspector, the Act clearly spells out the 

purpose of a miners' representative's participation in 

an inspection. Section 103 (f) [30 U.S.C. § 813 (f)] 

provides that an authorized miners' representative shall 

have the opportunity to accompany a federal inspector 

during the inspection of a mine 11 for the purpose of 

aiding such inspection. 11 While we recognize UPL's 

concern that walkaround rights may be abused by 

nonemployee representatives, the potential for abuse 

does not require a construction of the Act that would 

exclude nonemployee representatives from exercising 

walkaround rights altogether. The solution is for the 

operator to take action against individual instances of 

abuse when it discovers them. 

The hypothetical situation envisioned by the petitioner in 

Utah Power & Light became reality and reached the courts in 

Kerr-McGee, 40 F.3d 1257. There, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, relying heavily on 

Utah Power & Light, decided the same issue we are presented with 

in this case and held that the walkaround rights granted under 

§ 813(f) extend to nonemployee union agents. Kerr-McGee, 40 F.3d 

at 1263. The District of Columbia Circuit rejected the argument 

that the Act and its legislative history contemplated direct 

actions by miners but not by unions. Noting that the regulations 

define 11 representative of miners 11 to include 11 [a]ny person or 

7 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 7 
organization which represents two or more miners at a coal or 

other mine for purposes of the Act ... , 11 30 C.F.R. § 40.1(a) (1), 

the court held that "[t]he definition, by specifically including 

'organizations,' appears to contemplate that labor unions may 

serve as miners' representatives. 11 Kerr-McGee, 40 F.3d at 1262. 

The Kerr-McGee court further held that the representative 

organization need not be selected by a majority of the miners. 

"[T]he Preamble to the Part 40 regulations expressly considers and 

rejects the notion that miners' representatives must be selected 

by a majority of miners. 11 Id. 

In response to Kerr-McGee's argument that the union's use of 

the miners' representative designation for organizing purposes 

constituted an abuse of the Mine Act, the District of Columbia 

Circuit relied on this court's analysis in Utah Power & Light: 

[A]s the Tenth Circuit pointed out in rejecting any such 

automatic presumption of abuse, "the potential for abuse 

does not require a construction of the Act that would 

exclude nonemployee representatives from exercising 

walkaround rights altogether. The solution is for the 

operator to take action against individual instances of 

abuse when it discovers them." 

Id. at 1264 (quoting Utah Power & Light, 897 F.2d at 452). Thus, 

the court in Kerr-McGee concluded that "[t]he motivations of a 

miners' representative are irrelevant so long as the 

representative, through its actions, does not abuse its 

designation and serves the objectives of the Act." Id. 

In its argument to the District of Columbia Circuit, 

Kerr-McGee maintained that, in determining whether a union could 

act as a miners' representative, the Secretary was required by 

Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527 (1992), to balance the mine 

8 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 8 
owner's property interests against the safety goals of the Act. 

The court, noting that the Act grants only limited access to the 

mine for purposes of health and safety, held that 11 Congress, 

rather than the agency, has conducted the balancing, [thus making] 

the Lechmere standard . inapplicable. 11 Kerr-McGee, 40 F.3d at 

1265. 

Finally, the court in Kerr-McGee held 

non-elected unions to serve as miners' 

Secretary has not disregarded any 'other 

that 11 [b]y allowing 

representatives, the 

and equally important 

Congressional objectives' under the NLRA. 11 Id. 

In an effort to distinguish its case, Thunder Basin argues 

that the court in Kerr-McGee wrongly interpreted Utah Power & 

Light. Thunder Basin maintains that Utah Power & Light implicitly 

limits the purpose of the walkaround right to aiding in an 

inspection and that any other purpose is an 11 ipso facto 11 abuse of 

the Mine Act. Appellant's Br. at 18. Thus, according to Thunder 

Basin, because the miners' representatives here also hoped to 

further their organizing activity, they can be barred from 

designation. 

In Utah Power & Light, we observed that 11 the Act clearly 

spells out the purpose of a miners' representative's participation 

in an inspection. Section 103 (f) [30 U.S.C. § 813 (f)] provides 

that an authorized miners' representative shall have the 

opportunity to accompany a federal inspector during the inspection 

of a mine 'for the purpose of aiding such inspection.' 11 897 F.2d 

at 452. As noted above, Thunder Basin reasons from this that any 

other purpose is 11 ipso facto 11 abusive. Thunder Basin reads our 

9 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 9 
holding in Utah Power & Light too narrowly. Thunder Basin is in 

effect arguing for a mine operator's privilege to bar certain 

designated miners' representatives from the outset if there is 

evidence that multiple purposes may be part of the 

representative's agenda. We rejected that "potential for abuse" 

argument in Utah Power & Light, and we do so again here. 

In Utah Power & Light, in response to the hypothetical 

spectre of abuse by a union representative, we stated that "the 

potential for abuse does not require a construction of the Act 

that would exclude nonemployee representatives from exercising 

walkaround rights altogether. The solution is for the operator to 

take action against individual instances of abuse when it 

discovers them." Id. 

We reiterated this analysis in Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. 

Martin, 969 F.2d at 976-77, where we acknowledged that being named 

a miners' representative "'for purposes unrelated to the Act's 

safety objectives [would constitute] an inappropriate exercise of 

the UMWA's designation rights under§ [813] (f) .... '" Far from 

viewing this situation as grounds for disallowing a person from 

acting as a miners' representative ab initio, we went on to repeat 

that the proper course for a mine owner "would be to 'take action 

against individual instances of abuse when it discovers them.'" 

Id. at 977 (quoting Utah Power & Light, 897 F.2d at 452). 

This analysis was endorsed by the Supreme Court in Thunder 

Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 114 8. Ct. 771, 781 (1994), aff'g Thunder 

Basin Coal Co. v. Martin, 969 F.2d 970, where the Court stated: 

"Although it is possible that a miners' representative could abuse 

10 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 10 
his privileges, we agree with the [Tenth Circuit] Court of Appeals 

that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that such abuse, 

entirely hypothetical on the record before us, cannot be remedied 

on an individual basis under the Mine Act." Id. (citing Martin, 

969 F.2d at 976-77 and n.6; Utah Power & Light, 897 F.2d at 452; 

Kerr-McGee Coal Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, 15 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 

361-362). This standard leaves no room for an operator to refuse 

to accept a properly designated miners' representative because of 

some perceived potential for "per se abuse." We hold, therefore, 

that the Commission's interpretation of the Act to permit a 

nonemployee union agent to function as a miners' representative is 

a permissible construction of the statute. As in Utah Power & 

Light, a contrary conclusion 11 would have us read a limitation into 

the statute that has no basis in the statutory language." 

Power & Light, 897 F.2d at 451. 

Thunder Basin argues that the Commission here, by focusing 

only on abuses that may occur during walkaround, ignored the many 

other rights that flow from designation as a miners' 

representative and which, 

opportunities for abuse.4 

presumably, could also present 

We find no basis upon which to 

4 In Reich, 114 S. Ct. at 774 n.2, the Supreme Court noted 

that: 

Miners' representatives are entitled to receive "a copy 

of any order, citation, notice, or decision11 issued by 

the Secretary to the mine operator, 30 U.S.C. § 819(b), 

as well as copies of certain mine health and safety 

records available to the Secretary regarding employee 

exposure to toxic or other harmful agents, § 813(c), 

daily mine inspections, 30 C.F.R. § 77.1713, and plans 

for mine excavation, § 77.1101, roof control, § 75.220, 

and employee training, §§ 48.3 and 48.23. 

(continued on next page) 

11 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 11 
conclude, however, that the Commission did not also consider the 

broader powers accorded a miners' representative. As discussed 

above, the Commission in this case, through the ALJ, relied on 

Kerr-McGee for its conclusion. Kerr-McGee, in turn, based its 

holding in part on analysis of the definition of 11 representative 

of miners 11 found in 30 C.F.R. § 40.1. Kerr-McGee, 15 F.M.S.H.R.C. 

at 356. There, the Commission sustained the ALJ's conclusion 

11 that a union may represent miners for walkaround and other Mine 

Act purposes. 11 Id. (emphasis added). This is explicit evidence 

that the Commission in Kerr-McGee (and later in this case) 

considered the status of miners' representative with all its 

attendant features. Nothing in Kerr-McGee, either at the 

Commission level or when later affirmed by the District of 

Columbia Circuit, limits its holding to recognize a miners' 

representative's right to accompany the inspector but otherwise to 

(continued from previous page) 

Further, 

Miners' representatives, among other things, may inform 

the Secretary of mine hazards, 30 U.S.C. § 813(g) (2), 

request immediate additional inspections of the mine 

when a violation or imminent danger exists, § 813(g) (1), 

and participate in proceedings before the Federal Mine 

Safety and Health Review Commission, § 815(d). 

Representatives may request or challenge certain 

enforcement actions against a mine operator, §§ 815(d) 

and 817(e) (1), contest the time an operator is given to 

abate a Mine Act violation, § 815(d), and initiate 

proceedings to modify the application of health and 

safety standards, 30 C.F.R. § 44.3. 

Id. at n.3. 

12 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 12 
preclude the exercise of his or her auxiliary statutory rights and 

duties.5 

Further, the Supreme Court's opinion in Reich, ll4 S. Ct. 

77l, can be fairly read to reject Thunder Basin's argument. In 

Reich, the Supreme Court noted early in the opinion the various 

powers and duties attendant upon designation as a miners' 

representative. Id. at 774 & n.2 & n.3. The Court later reasoned 

that "the potential for abuse of the miners' representative 

position appears limited . . [because] . . designation as a 

miners' representative does not convey an uncontrolled access 

right to the mine property to engage in any activity that the 

miners' representative wants." Id. at 781 (internal quotation 

omitted) . We read this analysis to include all of the rights 

accorded the miners' representative. 

Thunder Basin next argues that the Commission's ruling 

deprives it of its rights under the National Labor Relations Act 

(NLRA) and, citing Lechmere, 502 U.S. 527, that the Commission 

should have balanced Thunder Basin's property rights with the 

dictates of the Act. In Reich, the Supreme Court rejected this 

argument: 

Without addressing the merits of petitioner's underlying 

claim, we note that petitioner appears to misconstrue 

Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. [527], 112 S. Ct. 841, 

117 L.Ed.2d 79 (1992). The right of employers to 

exclude union organizers from their private property 

emanates from state common law, and while this right is 

5 We note that "[m]iners or their representative organization 

may appoint or designate different persons to represent them under 

various sections of the act relating to representatives of 

miners." 30 C.F.R. § 40.2(b). The miners in this case, however, 

did not differentiate among the various duties assigned to their 

designated representatives. 

13 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 13 
not superseded by the NLRA, nothing in the NLRA 

expressly protects it. To the contrary, this Court 

consistently has maintained that the NLRA may entitle 

union employees to obtain access to an employer's 

property under limited circumstances. Moreover, in a 

related context, the Court has held that Congress' 

interest in regulating the mining industry may justify 

limiting the private property interests of mine 

operators. 

Reich, 114 S. Ct. at 781 n.21 (citations omitted). Thunder 

Basin's reliance, therefore, on Lechmere is misplaced. See also 

Kerr-McGee, 40 F.3d at 1265 (holding it unnecessary to balance 

property and union interests because Congress, rather than the 

agency, had already done the balancing). 

Finally, Thunder Basin argues that the citation it received 

violates its due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. As 

noted by the Supreme Court, the rights of a miners' representative 

do not include unimpeded access to mine property for any 

conceivable activity. Reich, 114 S. Ct. at 781. Indeed, "the 

potential for abuse of the miners' representative position appears 

limited." Id. And, more pertinent to a due process question, 

this court has held that the Mine Act adequately protects a mine 

operator's due process rights. Martin, 969 F.2d at 975-76 

(detailing statutory procedure and finding that "a full and 

adequate hearing is provided before any penalty actually is 

imposed"). We, therefore, find no constitutional infirmity in the 

Commission's decision. 

The judgment of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission is AFFIRMED. 

14 

Appellate Case: 94-9563 Document: 01019279279 Date Filed: 06/07/1995 Page: 14