Date:  November 1, 1994

Case No.: 94-STA-29

IN THE MATTER OF:

MARC R. ALLEN,
     Complainant

v.

HUBBARD TRUCKING, INC.,
     Respondent


                             RECOMMENDED ORDER

     As can be seen from the history of this matter, set forth in
the Decision and Order on REsponse to Motion to Show CAuse,
issued September 14, 1994, and incorporated herein by reference
and as well from other relevant documents, the claimant
demonstrates a continued indifference, if not disdain for the
adjudicative process tht is entirely contrary to his allegations
and sworn undertaking.
     When ordered to provide a current address and phone number
to facilitate communication, Mr. Allen provided a street address
with no indication of city or state and a phone number which was
not his own and whose owner was unable to say when if ever Mr.
Allen could be contacted at that number. (See, Allen's
handwritten letter of August 26 at 2.)  Mr. Allen has provided a
P.O. Box address and in the past has received mail at that Box. 
He has not however collected mail from his P.O. Box since
September 18, 1994 at the latest.
     The Decision and Order on REsponse to Order to Show CAuse
issued on September 14, 1994, again ordering Allen to serve his
pre-hearing statement on the respondent was sent to Allen's
Arvada, Colorado P.O. Box by regular and by certified mail, the
regula mailing was returned because the postal zone provided by
Mr. Allen was incorrect.  The certified mailing was not
immediately returned.
     The decision and Order issued on September 14, 1994 was
received by respondent in Denver,Colorado on September 17, 1994,
as shown by respondent's letter of September 22, 1994, and in
Arvada, Colorado on or about the same date.  The complainant was
ordered to serve his prehearing statement on respondent and the
undersigned no later than the close of business on the fifth day 
[PAGE 2]
after the date of issuance of the Order, but no later than
September 17.[1] 
     The certified mailing, was finally returned by the Arvada
Post Office on October 20, 1994, consistent with postal
regulations regarding certified mail which is unclaimed after the
post office has provided three notices.  In the instant case the
dates of notice are listed on the face of the envelope: 9/18 or
19 (2d digit indistinct); 9/24 and 10/5.
     The complainant's whereabouts are unknown.  His ocntinued
failure to comply with the orders of this tribunal, his continued
neglect of his prosecutorial obligation and indifference to the
procedural requirements of the adjudicative process unduly and
uselessly burden the public and the private fisc while precluding
adjudication of the complaint.
     I conclude that the complainant's continuing wilful
disregard of the orders of this tribunal coupled with a failure
to prosecute and a refusal to maintain a means of communication
requisite to the adjudicative process, warrrants dismissal
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and 29 C.F.R. §18.9(a)(8) of the Rules of Practice,
particularly when as in the instant case, the complainant has
been warned that the aforesaid course of conduct, if continued,
will result in dismissal, and he nevertheless persists in such
obstructive course.
     Accordingly, it is my recommendation that an Order be issued
dismissing this matter pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
     Dated this 1st day of November, 1994 at San Francisco,
California.

VIVIAN SCHRETER-MURRAY
Administrative Law Judge

NOTICE:  This Recommended Order and the administrative file in
this matter will be forwarded for review by the Secretary of
Labor to the Office of Administrative Appeals, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room S-4309, Frances Perkins building, 200 Constitution
Ave., NW, Washingotn, DC 20210.  The Office of Administrative
Appeals has the responsibility to advise and assist the Secretary
in the preparation and issuance of final decisions in employee
protection cases adjudicated under the regulations at 29 C.F.R.
Parts 24 and 1978.  See 55 Fed. Reg. 13250 (1990).



[ENDNOTES]

[1] The date given should have been September 19, (14 + 5).  In
the circumstances the error, which would have been allowed for
had the complainant responded, is without effect or consequence.