Search

Shelter-in-place strategies to prevent the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) has disrupted the U.S. workplace. However, unlike a typical office environment, mines cannot operate without employees on property. In order [...]

When medical marijuana first started to become legal, mine operators responded in a similar way. Most mines continue to have a zero-tolerance policy for both applicants and current employees for [...]

Picture this. Your mine gets a Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) citation you do not agree with for a variety a reasons. The problem is, it's been assessed at [...]

All operators are familiar with the rights afforded to all miners under the Mine Act. For example, all miners (hourly or salaried) have the right (1) to file or make [...]

On March 27, 2012, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, Joe Main, spoke before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the Workforce regarding the [...]

The rise in allegations of unwarrantable failures and 104(d) paper has raised the possibility of operators facing more special investigators. The investigators will conduct 110c investigations to determine any violation of a mandatory safety or health standard. How to get the citation or order reduced before it gets referred to special investigations is also discussed.

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission has a rule that allows a party to ask the court for an expedited process. This rule may be useful when a mine operator has been issued a citation and that they find that contesting this citation would be lengthy.

The article focuses on the impact of coronavirus pandemic on different business. It mentions that employers are eager for an effective coronavirus vaccine. It also mentions that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will provide guidance on this issue once a vaccine is approved as it also provided guidance at the beginning of the pandemic.

The article reports on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all workplaces around the U.S. mining industry. Topics mentioned include the position of the Mine Safety and Health Administration on reporting COVID-19, the efforts of the mining industry to ensure the safety of workers when faced with the pandemic, and guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on mitigating COVID-19 in the workplace.

The article suggestions for employers to stay tuned to the evolving law around marijuana use and employee protections. Topics discussed include employment matters relating to cannabis use; recreational users of marijuana are not penalized and denied employment due to pre-employment drug screening tests; and law prohibits employers from denying employment to lawful marijuana users based on pre-employment tests.

The article highlights the approaches to manage the minefield of marijuana in the workplace. Topics discussed the consideration of medical marijuana as legal in 33 states and in the District of Columbia; mentions the requirement of mines to have zero tolerance policy for both applicants and current employees; and highlights workplace safety related case decided by the Rhode Island Superior Court.

The article discusses challenges faced by mine operators. It mentions about U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration's safety policies procedures for hazards involved in mining; impact of cell phones while operating machinery; and dangers posed by autonomous drillers and haul trucks, along with improving safety of the same.

The article discusses how mine operators in the U.S. can challenge Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) citations without a lawyer and successfully represent themselves. It suggests first to be organized, assess the case, and talk settlement. It also recommends to outline the arguments for court once the case is set for hearing. Information resources that may help in the case is noted.

The article focuses on a Program Policy Letter (PPL) released by the U.S. Mine Safety & Health Administration (MSHA) on July 22, 2015 regarding workplace examination practices. As per the Program Policy, workplace examination can be done by foreman, supervisor or experienced non-supervisor. It mentions that the PPL is discouraging miners from taking the responsibility of ensuring a safe workplace.

The author conveys her thoughts about the scope of the Mine Safety and Health Administration's (MSHA) jurisdiction. Topics discussed include Section 3(h)(1) of the Mine Act, an Interagency Agreement published by the U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 1979, and the court case Clarkson Construction Co., Inc. v. Secretary of Labor.

The article explores an announcement made by Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) on May 28, 2014 on its campaign to prevent accidents at mines or quarries in the U.S. Topics discussed include the concern on the increase in the number of fatalities in a six-month period, assessment of mining sites by MSHA personnel and promotion of training in industrial safety. Aso mentioned is a court decision on the violations committed by Twentymile Coal Co.

The article discusses criminal charges facing mine and quarry operators in the U.S. in violation of mine and occupational safety. It cites two cases wherein an operator received a prison sentence for the death of two employees, and a contractor facing murder charges involving multiple fatalities. It highlights the significance of team training about manager liability under the safety laws to avoiding litigations.

The article tackles the implications of medical marijuana statutes for employers and mine operators in the U.S. Topics discussed are the termination of an employee that tests positive for marijuana based on an employer's good faith belief, the consideration of marijuana as Schedule 1 drug under the federal Controlled Substance Act, and discriminations claims arising out of medical marijuana usage as a result of the proliferation of medical marijuana laws.

The article discusses the negative impact of discrimination complaints and request for temporary reinstatement under the Mining Act to mining operators. According to the article, the law is so biased in favor of the worker because even if there is an initial finding of no discrimination, and yet the miner decides to pursue the case, the miner will continue to be paid until a decision is rendered. This is a costly proposition for operators seeking to challenge a baseless discrimination claim.