Matala v. Consolidation Coal Co., Nos. 80-1287

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before BUTZNER, SPROUSE and ERVIN; ERVIN; SPROUSE
• Citation: 647 F.2d 427
• Parties: , 1981 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 25,517 John MATALA, Appellee, v. CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Appellant, and Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, Defendant. John MATALA, Appellee, v. Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor, Appellant, and Consolidation Coal Company, Defendant.
• Docket Number: Nos. 80-1287,80-1288
• Decision Date: 21 July 1981

Page 427

647 F.2d 427 60 A.L.R.Fed. 827, 1981 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 25,517 John MATALA, Appellee,
v.
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Appellant,
and
Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, Defendant.
John MATALA, Appellee,
v.
Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor, Appellant,
and
Consolidation Coal Company, Defendant. Nos. 80-1287, 80-1288. United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit. Argued Jan. 7, 1981.
Decided April 24, 1981.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 21, 1981.

Belva D. Newsome, U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C. (Carin Ann Clauss, Sol. of Labor, Laurie M. Streeter, Associate Sol., Judith E. Wolf, Co-Counsel, Washington, D. C., for Black Lung Benefits on brief), for appellant Secretary of Labor.

John H. Riordan, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa. (Anthony J. Polito, Leonard Fornella, Rose, Schmidt, Dixon, Hasley, Whyte & Hardesty, Pittsburgh, Pa., on brief), for appellant Consolidation Coal Co.

Page 428

Steven B. Jacobson, Los Angeles, Cal. (De Castro, West & Chodorow, Los Angeles, Cal., James M. Haviland, Washington, D. C., and McIntyre, Haviland & Jordan, Charleston, W. Va., Harrison Combs, General Counsel, Mary Lu Jordan, United Mine Workers of America, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellee.

Before BUTZNER, SPROUSE and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

ERVIN, Circuit Judge:

Matala is an underground coal employee at Consolidation Coal Company's (Consolidation) Blacksville No. 2 mine in Monongalia County, West Virginia. Prior to March 1, 1975, Matala was employed as a continuous mine operator. On or about March 1, 1975, he was diagnosed as having symptoms of pneumoconiosis (black lung). He thus exercised his right granted by section 203(b)(2) of title II of the Federal Coal Mine Health & Safety Act of 1969 (the Act) ¹ to transfer to a less dusty area of the mine. Any miner who exercises his option to transfer is guaranteed by section 203(b)(3) compensation for his new work "at not less than the regular rate of pay received by him immediately prior to his transfer." 30 U.S.C. § 843(b)(3).

After his transfer, Matala was classified as a general inside laborer, a classification having a lower daily base rate than that of his old classification as a continuous mine operator. Matala, however, was paid the same daily base rate after his transfer that he received immediately prior to his transfer. He also received periodic cost of living increases granted to all coal miners.

In a complaint filed with the Department of Labor pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 938, ² Matala contended that after he transferred, he was entitled under section 203(b)(3) not only to the same daily base pay that he received in his prior job classification, but also to all wage increases subsequently granted to miners classified as continuous mine operators during the term of the wage agreement that sets the pay scales for each job classification. ³ He claimed that Consolidation discriminated against him in violation of 30 U.S.C. § 938(a) when it failed to grant him such increases. ⁴

Page 429

The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) interpreted "regular rate of pay" in section 203(b)(3) to mean the dollar amount that Matala received immediately prior to transferring. The Secretary found that Matala's employer, Consolidation, had paid Matala the same amount after his transfer that he had received immediately prior to transferring. He concluded that Consolidation had not discriminated against Matala by reason of his having been diagnosed as having pneumoconiosis. Thus, Matala's complaint was dismissed.

Matala then filed a petition in district court for review of the Secretary's order. The district court concluded that the Secretary's interpretation of section 203(b)(3) was erroneous. It, therefore, granted Matala's motion for summary judgment against the Secretary and Consolidation, reversing the decision of the Secretary. Both the Secretary and Consolidation appeal the district court's decision. We reverse.

I.

In this case we must decide whether section 203(b)(3) of the Act guarantees the transferred miner only the amount that he received immediately prior to his transfer or whether it requires the employer to continue to pay a transferred employee at his pre-transfer classification rate. If we adopt this latter construction, a transferred employee would continue to receive any pay increases granted to those in his pre-transfer classification subsequent to his transfer.

When we are faced with a question of statutory interpretation, our starting point for discerning congressional intent is the language of the statute itself. State Water Control Board v. Train, 559 F.2d 921, 924-25 n.20 (4th Cir. 1977). Congress is presumed to have used words according to their ordinary meaning unless a different use is clearly indicated. United States v. Snider, 502 F.2d 645 (4th Cir. 1974). In examining section 203(b)(3), we find the language contained therein to be unambiguous. Accord, Higgins v. Marshall, 584 F.2d 1035 (D.C.Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 931, 99 S.Ct. 2051, 60 L.Ed.2d 659 (1979). The meaning of section 203(b)(3) is clear on its face; it provides that a miner who transfers because of pneumoconiosis "shall receive compensation for such work at not less than the regular rate of pay received by him immediately prior to his transfer." (emphasis added). The ordinary meaning of "rate" is dollar amount. See Higgins v. Marshall, 584 F.2d 1035 (D.C.Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 931, 99 S.Ct. 2051, 60 L.Ed.2d 659 (1979). Furthermore, "regular rate of pay" must not be read alone but must be construed with the rest of section 203(b)(3). See United States v. Snider, 502 F.2d 645, 652 (4th Cir. 1974). In the statutory context of section 203(b) (3), the plain meaning of "rate" is confirmed by the modifying phrase "received by him immediately prior to his transfer." If "rate" were construed as referring to classification rate, then "received by him" would have no meaning, thereby violating a basic canon of statutory construction that all words in a statute are to be given effect. Id.

Matala has urged upon us a construction that is at odds with the plain meaning of section 203(b)(3). He contends that "regular rate of pay" means the classification rate. In support of his position, he cites two passages in the legislative history. He first asserts that the conferees intended

Page 430

that the Act be construed liberally when improved health or safety to miners will result. H.R.Rep.No.761, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 63 (1969), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1969, p. 2503. He also argues that our interpretation is contrary to Congress' intent that those who transfer should "suffer no loss in compensation." S.Rep.No.411, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 50 (1969). Matala contends that if "regular rate of pay" is interpreted to mean merely dollar amount, then, although the miner who transfers may not necessarily suffer any loss at the moment of transfer, he may suffer substantial losses shortly after transferring if those persons in his pre-transfer classification are granted subsequent increases. ⁵

While we sympathize with Matala's position, we do not agree with it. The plain meaning of a statute should be rejected only if there is substantial, unambiguous evidence supporting a contrary interpretation. State Water Control Board v. Train, 559 F.2d 921, 924-25 n.20 (4th Cir. 1977). We find Matala's references to the legislative history...