Opinion ID: 490900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the secretary's complaint

Text: 25 In 1983 and 1984, the Secretary initiated the current litigation by filing complaints against Peabody and Jim Walter before the Commission. The Secretary contended that each operator's recall policy, by taking into account the laid-off individuals' training status, was discriminatory under section 105(c)(1) of the Act, and that Jim Walter's practice of not compensating miners who obtained pre-hire training while on layoff violated an operator's duty to train under section 115 of the Act. The Secretary sought orders requiring Peabody and Jim Walter to recall, and to provide back-pay to, the passed over employees. The Secretary also requested an order requiring Jim Walter to compensate recalled employees for new miner training. The Commission denied the Secretary's request that both operators be ordered to recall those who were passed over, but it did order Jim Walter to provide compensation to those who obtained training while on layoff and were recalled as a result. Jim Walter did not appeal. Thus, the Secretary's appeal of the recall issue is the only matter before us. 26 The Secretary argued below that sections 105 and 115 of the Act operate in conjunction to prohibit operators from considering training status when making hiring decisions; i.e., that such decisions, including recall decisions, must be training neutral. 34 The pivotal provision is section 105(c)(1), which in relevant part prohibits discrimination because of the exercise by such miner ... or applicant for employment ... of any statutory right afforded by this chapter. 35 Since section 105(c)(1) protects applicants for employment, the Secretary's burden is only to show that Peabody or Jim Walter failed to recall the individuals because of [their] exercise ... of [a] statutory right afforded by [the Act]. Accordingly, the Secretary has argued from the undisputed right afforded a miner under section 115 to receive training prior to beginning surface or underground work to the proposition that laid-off individuals are entitled to training neutral criteria for recall. 27 As the Commission below and the parties before us recognize, the success of the Secretary's argument depends almost entirely on whether the individuals passed over qualified as miners under section 115 while on layoff. The Act defines miner in section 3(g) as any individual working in a coal or other mine. 36 The Commission held that individuals on layoff do not qualify as miners. In arguing that it is reasonable to conclude otherwise, the Secretary offers an intricate explanation for why these individuals were working in a coal ... mine, despite the obvious fact that, at the moment when the operators decided not to recall them, they were not working in a coal ... mine but were instead on layoff. That explanation, which was first announced only at oral argument before this court, does not represent the Secretary's first attempt at construing the term miner in such a way as to trigger the anti-discrimination provision in section 105(c)(1). In fact, the Secretary's current explanation for why these individuals were miners can only be understood in light of his failure in advocating alternative interpretations of the term miner before the Commission and another court of appeals.