The Mine Safety and Health Administration said in a statement Wednesday that New Elk also agreed to pay MSHA a $10,000 civil penalty, in what was the second discriminatory termination case against the Trinidad mine in the last 18 months.

MSHA said the electrician contacted them in April 2012 to report a hazardous condition along a beltline that he claimed his supervisors were not properly addressing at the New Elk mine.

MSHA issued several citations to the mine the day after he filed the claim.

The worker's position and shift changed multiple times over the next three weeks and, on May 12, he was terminated.

One month later, the miner filed a complaint of discrimination with MSHA, alleging that he had been fired for notifying the agency of the mine's hazardous condition.

In a complaint filed with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, MSHA sought a finding that New Elk Coal had unlawfully discriminated against the employee in violation of Section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.

The statute protects miners, their representatives and applicants for employment from retaliation for engaging in safety and health-related activities such as identifying hazards.

An administrative law judge ordered during an August 2012 hearing that the miner be temporarily reinstated however, based on an agreement by the parties, the miner received approximately seven months of pay in lieu of returning to work.

Prior to the hearing on the merits of the miner's discrimination claim, the parties settled the case out of court, with New Elk Mining agreeing to compensate him for an additional 10 months of pay.

In a separate case last January, the parties reached agreement that resolved a claim of discriminatory termination of a supervisor at the same mine. In that case, too, New Elk agreed to pay a civil penalty of $10,000 to MSHA, plus approximately $88,000 to the terminated employee. Additionally, the company agreed to provide company-wide training regarding miners' rights.

"All miners, supervisors and contractors have the right to identify hazardous conditions and refuse unsafe work without fear of discrimination or retaliation," MSHA assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health Joseph A. Main said in the statement.

"They also have the right to be trained in the health and safety aspects of tasks, including recognizing hazards at the mine and the proper procedures for reporting those hazards."

In separate legal action, Cline Mining said this week that it did not violate any federal regulations in the furloughing of 78% of its workforce at the New Elk complex in Colorado last July.

While the company has not released a public statement, local newspaper the Pueblo Chieftain reported that New Elk responded to a February 1 lawsuit filed by some laid-off miners and denied it short-changed crews on the required 60-day advance layoff notice.

The suit, the specific plaintiffs in which are unknown, is demanding 60 days of wages as well as fringe benefits for at least 225 of workers formally employed at the mine.

The 60-day advance notice is required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, though the Chieftain reported that Cline said that did not apply to these layoffs.

New Elk confirmed last July it would temporarily suspend mining at the operation in a cost management move to help the operation’s long-term growth plans.