We’ve reported before (see here and here) on the case of Ricky Lee Campbell, a Massey Energy miner who says the company fired him after he complained about safety conditions at the company’s operations.
This case has been more closely followed by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which published Campbell’s initial comments following the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster, and by Howard Berkes at National Public Radio (among the few national media still paying much attention to the disaster follow-up stories).
As Berkes reported on Friday, an administrative law judge has ordered that Campbell be temporarily reinstated — and today that judge issued a written ruling on that matter.
In a news release this evening, MSHA outlined the case this way:
Campbell began working for Marfork at Parker Peerless Mine in November 2009. In January 2010, he was transferred to Upper Big Branch Mine, where he worked until late March. Campbell briefly returned to Parker Peerless before starting work at Slip Ridge on April 5, 2010. According to Campbell, he voiced safety concerns about the shuttle car he was assigned to operate, citing faulty brakes and tram pedals. Campbell reported the problem to members of mine management and also shut down the shuttle car because of the problems. Campbell alleges that his safety complaints were disregarded. On April 7, Campbell also criticized safety practices at the Upper Big Branch Mine during a television interview. On April 14, Campbell was suspended subject to discharge and dismissed April 23.
Campbell filed a complaint under section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 that prohibits a mine operator from retaliating against a miner for exercising protected rights, including making safety complaints. The purpose of the protection is to encourage miners “to play an active part in the enforcement of the Mine Act” recognizing that, “if miners are to be encouraged to be active in matters of safety and health, they must be protected against any possible discrimination which they might suffer as a result of their participation.”
Among the interesting things about this case is this part, reported by Berkes:
Campbell said he had been questioned by federal investigators looking into the Upper Big Branch accident.
The whistle-blower complaint filed with the Labor Department said Campbell was fired for his role in the federal investigation, his critical comments to reporters and his safety complaints at Slip Ridge.
But Gill ruled that the Slip Ridge complaints alone, and “the evidence of hostile, coarse and abrupt tone on the part of management is sufficient” to support Campbell’s claim of retaliation.
Before the June 4 hearing, the Labor Department withdrew the claim that Campbell’s cooperation with federal investigators contributed to his dismissal. The agency reserved the right to reinstate that portion of the complaint at a later date. Withdrawal of that claim kept an attorney for Massey Energy from asking probing questions about the federal investigation during the June 4 hearing.
But keep in mind that the case isn’t over … Massey will continue to fight the discrimination allegations, and as MSHA said in its prepared statement:
In his ruling, Administrative Law Judge L. Zane Gill found that the secretary had “established … that there is sufficient nexus between Campbell’s protected activity and the adverse action, i.e., his suspension and ultimate termination. The Secretary’s evidence is sufficient to establish that mine management knew or should have known that Campbell was complaining about faulty equipment.” The judge ordered that Campbell be temporarily reinstated to the job he held prior to his termination and that reinstatement shall continue until there has been a final determination on the merits of Campbell’s case.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
Thank you, Ken Ward Jr. for staying on this story with accuracy and clarity, as usual. And, I must admit that I thought some of earlier reports from Howard Berkes and NPR were skewed a little toward the idea of digging for dirt on regulatory agencies, rather than accept the one-sided, misinformation campaign against hard-working inspectors, negatively affecting the credibility of those men and women who go underground to make sure miners are safe. This Berkes piece has made me rethink that belief; sorry about that– good reporting on this one.
From reading all the press (mostly on this site) regarding this disaster, I believe this story and Campbell’s re-instatement is vastly important, because it exemplifies perfectly why Congress gave our miners certain protections under the Mine Act — from this very type of retaliation.
The miners who do the work every day are CRUCIAL in making sure their mines are safe. The Mine Act states:
“…the existence of unsafe and unhealthful conditions and practices in the Nation’s coal or other mines is a serious impediment to the future growth of the coal or other mining industry and cannot be tolerated;
(e) the operators of such mines with the assistance of the miners have the primary responsibility to prevent the existence of such conditions and practices in such mines;…” END QUOTE
Don Blankenship’s methods and practices (and make no mistake he sets the agenda) are dangerous to our miners. Not only does he violate federal laws that protect miners; his business model is not sound.
Why would Blankenship retaliate against a miner who does a good job for massey (and wants to do it safely)! — miner who cares about safety; a miner whose actions in speaking out about safety could save the company money (in fines) and very possibly save lives. So, Blankenship would rather pay fines and pay lawyers to get rid of a miner who is concerned about mining coal safely and abide by the law? That is the dumbest business model I’ve ever seen!
Here is the bottom line: Coal miners (like my grandfather) are hard-working, miners supply our country with essential energy resources; can fix anything! And they are fully capable to mine coal smart, safe, and should be able to do their jobs and SPEAK OUT on safety problems without fearing retaliation.
Good for MR. Campbell! There are thousands of other miners who deserve our respect and our protection to do their jobs safely.
I wonder what, if any, effect yesterday’s SCOTUS decision in New Process Steel v NLRB will have here and with the workers at the Horizon mine?
Area Man,
While that’s a completely different issue than discrimination under the Mine Act, it is a good question. I don’t know the answer.
For others who aren’t sure what Area Man is talking about, here’s the Washington Post story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061705685.html?hpid=topnews
Hundreds of recent federal rulings in disputes between unions and employers could be reopened after the Supreme Court said on Thursday that it was illegal for the National Labor Relations Board to decide the cases with only two sitting members.
The case before the court turns on an attempt by the NLRB to operate with only two of its five seats filled because of gridlock over presidential nominees, and it highlights the way political divisions in Congress interfere with basic government functions.
Before the board’s membership shrunk to two after stalled appointments by President Bush and then President Obama, members recognized that they would soon be shorthanded. They voted to delegate authority to the reduced board in order to keep moving the cases, which involve a variety of disputes between employees and employers over wages, working conditions, union organizing and contracts.
But in the 5-4 court decision, the majority called the board’s attempt to keep functioning a “Rube Goldberg-style delegation mechanism . . . surely a bizarre way for the Board to achieve the authority to decide cases.” The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the court’s most liberal members, who was joined by its most conservative voices, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas.
The NLRB decision on the Horizon matter was discussed here on Coal Tattoo, http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/10/02/nlrb-to-massey-rehire-union-mine-workers/, and a copy of the decision is available here:
http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Board%20Decisions/354/v35483.pdf
I believe it was indeed a case decided by two members of the NLRB, and I also recall that this 4th Circuit appeals court ruling, http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081973.P.pdf had approved of that arrangement — something the U.S. Supreme Court seems to have said was improper.
There’s more about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling here, http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/panel-of-two-is-not-sufficient-for-nlrb-authority/ and court briefs and all sorts of other things about the case are here http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=New_Process_Steel_v._National_Labor_Relations_Board#Briefs_and_Documents
Perhaps important to consider is this from the Post story:
“… the board will abide by the ruling. The board now has four members — three Democrats and one Republican — after Obama made two recess appointments in March.”
Ken.
Thanks, Ken.