DATE:     June 2, 1994
CASE NO.: 93-STA-00029

In the Matter of

DWIGHT E. TOLAND

          Complainant

     v.

PST VANS, INC.

          Respondent

BEFORE:   Richard E. Huddleston
          Administrative Law Judge


               RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
                    DISMISSING COMPLAINT

     The above action arises under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982
(STAA) (49 U.S.C. § 2305), and implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 1978,
based upon a complaint filed by Dwight E. Toland on January 28, 1993.  A Notice of
Hearing was issued on July 7, 1993, scheduling this matter for hearing in Columbus, Ohio, on
July 21, 1993.   
     However, Counsel for the Respondent has advised by letter dated July 9, 1993, that the
Respondent is currently under protection of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Central District of Utah; and that, pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(a), all proceedings in this action must be stayed as to the Respondent, unless the
Complainant obtains relief from the stay from the Bankruptcy Court.  
     Matters arising under the STAA have been held by the Secretary of Labor to be
subject to the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). 
See Nelson v. Walker Freight Line, Inc., Case No. 87-STA-24, Sec. Dec. and Order,
July 26, 1988; Thomas, et. al. v. Western American Concrete, Case No. 90-STA-16,
Sec. Dec. and Order Staying Proceedings and Remanding Case, April 8, 1991.  Furthermore,
because the Assistant Secretary, upon investigation of the complaint, determined that it had no
merit, and because of the ensuing absence of the Assistant Secretary either as a prosecuting
party or as an intervenor, Complainant s STAA proceeding does not fall within
§ 362(a)(b)(4), which exempts from the automatic stay provision any proceedings by
governmental units for enforcement of police and regulatory power.  See Torres v.
Transcon Freight Lines, Case No. 
[PAGE 2]
90-STA-29, Dep. Sec. Dec. and Order Staying Proceedings and Remanding Case, Jan. 30,
1991.
     Accordingly, the hearing which was scheduled in this matter for July 21, 1993, was
cancelled, and on July 12, 1993, an order was issued staying this matter pursuant to the
automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).
     On April 18, 1994, this office was provided with a copy of the order of the
Bankruptcy Court, dated February 17, 1994, confirming the debtors' plan of reorganization. 
Thereafter, a telephone conference was conducted with Attorney John Adams for the
Respondent, Attorney Brian Dougherty for the Solicitor, and Mr. Dwight Toland,
Complainant.  The purpose of the conference was to advise the parties of receipt of the order
of the Bankruptcy Court, and to allow the parties to express their opinions on whether further
proceedings in this matter should be conducted.  In order to give all parties, including Mr.
Toland who was not represented by Counsel, ample opportunity to review the order of the
Bankruptcy Court, and to respond thereto, an order was issued on April 20, 1994, granting all
parties 30 days to submit legal argument regarding the effect of entry of the order confirming
the debtor's plan of reorganization by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, and ordering the parties to
show cause why this matter should not be dismissed as having been discharged.
     On April 27, 1994, the Respondent submitted its memorandum in support of dismissal
of the complaint, arguing that  Complainant received notice of Respondent s Chapter 11
bankruptcy case pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah and should
have filed a proof of claim against Respondent in said case.   On May 24, 1994, the
Complainant submitted his response that the complaint should not be dismissed as  Plaintiff
was not listed at all in the Bankruptcy Court. 
     Clearly the Complainant was aware of the Bankruptcy proceedings, as he participated
in telephone conferences here and was served with various motions and orders relating to
such.  Whether he was properly served with notice of the Bankruptcy petition is a matter
which he must address to the Bankruptcy Court, itself, and not in this forum.   
     Based upon the foregoing, I find that the Respondent s liability in this action arising
under the STAA has been finally discharged by order of the United States Bankruptcy Court.
                            ORDER

     It is, therefore, recommended to the Secretary of Labor that the complaint of
Dwight E. Toland versus PST Vans, Inc., under the STAA, be Dismissed.

     Entered this the 2nd day of June, 1995, at Cincinnati, Ohio.


                                        Richard E. Huddleston
                                        Administrative Law Judge