Opinion ID: 693446
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unwarrantability

Text: 18 Buck Creek also argues that the ALJ's finding of unwarrantability was not supported by substantial evidence. An unwarrantable failure involves aggravated conduct constituting more than ordinary negligence. Emery Mining Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, 9 FMSHRC 1997, 2001 (1987). An unwarrantable failure may be established by showing that a violative condition or practice was not corrected prior to the issuance of a citation or order because of 'indifference, willful intent or serious lack of reasonable care.'  Id. at 2003. It has also been defined as an intentional or knowing failure to comply or reckless disregard for the health and safety of miners. Secretary of Labor v. Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co., 13 FMSHRC 189, 194 (1991). See also Secretary of Labor v. Virginia Crews Coal Co., 15 FMSHRC 2103, 2107 (1993). 19 Here, the ALJ's conclusion that Buck Creek's violation of 30 C.F.R. Sec. 75.400 was unwarrantable was based in large part on the mere extent of the accumulation, which Inspector Holland believed to reflect at least three shifts of buildup and which the ALJ more conservatively found must have been present since at least the previous shift. But contrary to Buck Creek's suggestion, the extent of accumulation was not the sole basis for the ALJ's decision. He also noted, for example, that a pre-shift examination had already been conducted and that the section foreman had been on duty for one and one half hours, but that still nothing was being done upon Inspector Holland's arrival to remove the extensive accumulation. (March 7, 1994 Order at 5-8.) And even more significant in our view, the ALJ found Buck Creek's failure to remedy the situation to be particularly egregious in light of the fact that the company had already received repeated warnings regarding this very problem. In March 1993 alone, Buck Creek had received nine citations for violations of the same regulation, one of which pertained to the same area in which the accumulation now at issue was located. (Id. at 7.) The ALJ's conclusion that the violation was in this instance unwarrantable was therefore clearly supported by substantial evidence. His determination that Buck Creek's contrary interpretation of the evidence was illogical was also well within his discretion. (see id. at 6.)