{
  "id": 5677926,
  "name": "MONTEREY COAL COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BRAD EVILSIZER, Director of the Department of Mines & Minerals, Defendant-Appellant (Freeman United Coal Mining Co. et al., Intervening Plaintiffs; Peabody Coal Co., Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee; United Mine Workers of America, District 12, Intervening Defendant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Monterey Coal Co. v. Evilsizer",
  "decision_date": "1984-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 4\u201483\u20140656",
  "first_page": "1032",
  "last_page": "1036",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "123 Ill. App. 3d 1032"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "228 N.E.2d 279",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. App. 2d 145",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2551797
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/85/0145-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 443,
    "char_count": 7570,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.764,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.16492197035425618
    },
    "sha256": "82603623921041a9df1e44b18797c35a3593d28ab7804c695ec156ab3d3dd3ad",
    "simhash": "1:45ecad3abc643e02",
    "word_count": 1223
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:44:31.202001+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MONTEREY COAL COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BRAD EVILSIZER, Director of the Department of Mines & Minerals, Defendant-Appellant (Freeman United Coal Mining Co. et al., Intervening Plaintiffs; Peabody Coal Co., Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee; United Mine Workers of America, District 12, Intervening Defendant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MILLS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nA single issue.\nDoes section 6.04(A) of the Coal Mining Act require a preshift examination before company personnel may carry out a \u201cfire watch\u201d?\nWe hold that it does not.\nThe Facts\nIn the summer of 1982, the United Mine Workers of America, Local Union No. 9878, petitioned the Mining Board of Illinois for an interpretation of section 6.04(A) of the Coal Mining Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 96V2, par. 604(A)), which requires a preshift examination of a mine before a shift of workers enters the mine to work. Section 6.04(A) of the Coal Mining Act states in pertinent part:\n\u201c1. When the mine is to be operated he [the mine examiner] shall examine the prescribed working places of such mine within 4 hours before any workers in such shift *** enter the underground areas of the mine. Examine every active working place in the mine and make tests therein with a permissible flame safety lamp for accumulation of methane and oxygen deficiency in the air therein; examine seals and doors to determine whether they are functioning properly; inspect and test the roof, face and rib conditions in the working areas and on active roadways and travelways; inspect active roadways, travelways, approaches to abandoned workings and accessible falls in active sections for explosive gas and other hazards; and inspect to determine whether the air in each split is traveling in its proper course and in normal volume.\n2. On non-coal producing shifts he shall examine the mine in its entirety the same as for a coal producing shift, except where men are to work only in the shaft, slope or drift or on the immediate shaft bottom, then only that area immediately surrounding the bottom need be examined.\u201d\nLocal 9878 requested the Mining Board to rule whether a coal mine operator could send company personnel down into a vacant mine to perform a fire watch inspection without first having the mine preexamined in accordance with section 6.04(A).\nA \u201cfire watch\u201d is an inspection carried out by company personnel when the mine is vacant \u2014 when no coal producing or non-coal-producing shift work, such as construction or maintenance work, is being performed. Fire watches are usually performed over long holiday weekends and during vacation periods. The fire watch personnel consists of company supervisory personnel \u2014 including foremen, mine managers, and assistant mine managers. All the personnel hold mine examiner certificates and most of them also hold mine manager certificates.\nThe fire watch personnel enter the mine and monitor the condition of the property, equipment, and materials underground. Their primary function is to locate and extinguish smouldering fires while the fires are small enough for one man to control. The fire watch personnel also visually check all belt drives, transformers, circuit breakers, battery chargers, and shaft bottoms. In addition, they check to make sure that all electrical circuits that should be energized are energized and that all electrical circuits that should not be energized are not energized.\nThe Mining Board declined to rule on Local 9878\u2019s petition for an interpretation of section 6.04(A) and instead referred the question to the Attorney General of Illinois. The Attorney General issued an opinion, finding that a fire watch may not be performed unless a section 6.04(A) preshift examination is carried out first.\nSeveral coal mine operators (Monterey Coal Company, Old Ben Coal Company, Freeman United Coal Mining Company, Inland Steel Coal Company, Peabody Coal Company) appealed the Attorney General\u2019s decision to the circuit court of Sangamon County, asking the court to enjoin Brad Evilsizer, the Director of the Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, from enforcing the Attorney General\u2019s opinion. District 12 of the United Mine Workers of America was granted leave to intervene.\nThe coal mine operators filed a motion for summary judgment. Evilsizer and District 12 replied. After a hearing was held, the circuit court entered an order finding that the Attorney General\u2019s opinion was an invalid and erroneous construction of section 6.04(a) and enjoined the enforcement of the opinion.\nEvilsizer and District 12 each filed separate appeals. This opinion deals with Evilsizer\u2019s appeal.\nAnalysis\nOn appeal, Evilsizer argues that the plain language of 6.04(A) supports the Attorney General\u2019s opinion that 6.04(A) requires that a preshift examination must be performed before a fire watch may be carried out. Evilsizer also argues that requiring a preshift examination before a fire watch is carried out furthers the legislature\u2019s purpose for enacting the Coal Mining Act \u2014 the promotion of mine safety.\nWe disagree on both points and affirm the trial court\u2019s order.\nPLAIN LANGUAGE\nThe plain language of 6.04(A) requires a preshift examination before any shift of workers enters the mine to perform coal producing or non-coal-producing work. A fire watch is simply not a shift of workers.\nWebster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 2095 (1976) defines a \u201cshift\u201d as:\n\u201cA group of people who work or occupy themselves in turn with other groups ***; a change of one group of people *** for another in regular alternation; a scheduled period of work or duty.\u201d\nA single worker entering an otherwise vacant mine on a random basis to perform a safety check does not fit within the above definition of a shift. Ergo, the plain language of 6.04(A) does not require a preshift examination before a fire watch is carried out.\nMINE SAFETY\nThis court noted in Freeman Coal Mining Corp. v. Ruff (1967), 85 Ill. App. 2d 145, 228 N.E.2d 279, that the legislative purpose behind the enactment of the Coal Mining Act was coal mine safety. Requiring a preshift examination before a fire watch would not further that purpose.\nFire watches are not required by law. The coal mine operators carry them out on a strictly voluntary basis. The operators apparently believe that the cost of the fire watches is outweighed by the protection they afford both the people and the property in the mine.\nAdding the burden of the cost \u2014 in both time and money \u2014 of a preshift examination to the cost of a fire watch would undoubtedly reduce the operator\u2019s incentive to carry out fire watches. Consequently, fire watches would be performed less frequently. And the overall result would be a decrease, not an increase, in mine safety. Ergo, requiring a preshift examination would hinder \u2014 not further \u2014 the legislative purpose behind the enactment of the Coal Mining Act.\nHi conclusion, both the plain language of section 6.04(A) and the legislative purpose behind the Coal Mining Act support the trial court\u2019s order finding that a preshift examination is not required before a fire watch is carried out.\nAccordingly, we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nTRAPP and WEBBER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MILLS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alexandra de Saint Phalle, of Londrigan, Potter & Randle, P.C., of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Stuart Dobbs, of Denby, Dobbs, Meno & Bloomer, P.C., of Carlinville, for appellee Monterey Coal Co.",
      "Richard R. Elledge, of Gould & Ratner, of Chicago, for appellee Peabody Coal Co.",
      "Edmund J. Moriarity, of Chicago, for appellee Old Ben Coal Co."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MONTEREY COAL COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BRAD EVILSIZER, Director of the Department of Mines & Minerals, Defendant-Appellant (Freeman United Coal Mining Co. et al., Intervening Plaintiffs; Peabody Coal Co., Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee; United Mine Workers of America, District 12, Intervening Defendant).\nFourth District\nNo. 4 \u2014 83\u20140656\nOpinion filed May 7, 1984.\nAlexandra de Saint Phalle, of Londrigan, Potter & Randle, P.C., of Springfield, for appellant.\nStuart Dobbs, of Denby, Dobbs, Meno & Bloomer, P.C., of Carlinville, for appellee Monterey Coal Co.\nRichard R. Elledge, of Gould & Ratner, of Chicago, for appellee Peabody Coal Co.\nEdmund J. Moriarity, of Chicago, for appellee Old Ben Coal Co."
  },
  "file_name": "1032-01",
  "first_page_order": 1054,
  "last_page_order": 1058
}