U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
ARB NO. 97-132
ALJ CASE NO. 87-STA-12
DATE: December 18, 1997
In the Matter of:
ROBERT C. LEIDIGH,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
FREIGHTWAY CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
This case arises under the employee protection provision of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C.A. §31105 (West 1996).
Complainant, Robert C. Leidigh (Leidigh), alleged that Respondent, Freightway Corporation
(Freightway), violated the STAA when it discharged him from his position as a truck driver. In a
Recommended Decision and Order (R. D. and O.) the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that
Freightway terminated Leidigh's employment for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons and
recommended dismissal of the complaint. The ALJ's findings of fact are supported by substantial
evidence on the record as a whole, and therefore are conclusive. 29 C.F.R. §1978.109(c). We
accept the ALJ's recommendation and dismiss the complaint. Both parties filed briefs in response
to the Board's Notice of Review and Order Establishing Briefing Schedule. Complainant
[Page 2]
subsequently requested permission to file an additional, or amended, brief. We hereby deny that
request, having concluded that no further or modified arguments would change our view of the
outcome in this matter.
1 "T1." refers to the
transcript of the hearing held on May 14, 1996. "T2." refers to the hearing held on July
10 and 11, 1996.
2 Leidigh claimed no knowledge
of Freightway's policy that allowed drivers to take company tractors home and use them to get to the
terminal. T. 89.
3 Upon rehire, Leidigh's company
seniority date was listed as July 1976. CX 24. The union protested, and as a result, the company
seniority date was changed to November 1986. Leidigh grieved the alteration in his seniority date,
CX 24 (reverse side), apparently without success.
4 In light of our disposition of this
complaint against Leidigh, we need not examine whether his seeking reinstatement in this
proceeding violated either the letter or the spirit of the NLRB settlement agreement.