Opinion ID: 446524
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: History of this Action

Text: 8 The Council describes itself as a grassroots citizen's organization which, since 1913, has worked to improve health and safety conditions in the Appalachian coal mines. 17 The petitioner is registered with the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) as the representative, 18 for purposes of the Act, 19 of miners at the Martin County Coal mines 1-C and 1-S in Martin County, Kentucky. As the miners' representative, the Council has taken an active interest in the development and implementation of safety training programs at these mines. At issue here is the Council's desire to monitor training classes at Martin to ensure that miners receive adequate safety instruction as mandated by the Mine Act. 9 It is unnecessary to review in detail the somewhat complicated history of the Council's requests of Martin that it be allowed to monitor safety training classes. 20 It suffices to note here that Martin repeatedly refused permission for the Council to enter mine property for that purpose 21 and that, as a consequence, the Council initiated the instant proceeding, alleging that this refusal constituted interference with its exercise of a right granted by the Act, in violation of section 105(c)(1). 10 The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who first heard the case ruled in the Council's favor. His interpretation of section 115 led him to find that nonemployee miners' representatives ... have an implied right to observe safety instruction. 22 The ALJ considered the requirement in section 115(a)(1) that miners be instructed in their statutory rights and in those of their representatives, and also the indication in section 115(b) that training may sometimes be conducted at a location other than the normal place of work, and from these provisions he inferred a statutory right of representatives to monitor safety instruction. 23 On this basis, the ALJ held that Martin violated section 105(c)(1) of the Act by refusing to allow the Council to monitor training sessions. 24 11 On discretionary review, the FMSHRC reversed the ALJ. 25 Observing that [n]either the Mine Act nor its legislative history--nor, for that matter, the Secretary's extensive regulations implementing section 115 of the Act--refers to a right of miners' representatives to monitor training classes, 26 the Commission held that Martin's refusal to allow the Council to monitor safety instruction did not violate section 105(c)(1) of the Act. The Council appeals the FMSHRC's decision to this court.