DATE:   February 25, 1994
CASE NO. 93-STA-4

IN THE MATTER OF

ROBERT REEMSNYDER,

          COMPLAINANT

     v.

MAYFLOWER TRANSIT, INC.,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                            DECISION AND ORDER

     Before me for review is the November 12, 1993, Recommended
Decision and Order (R.D. and O.) of the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) in this case arising under section 405, the employee
protection provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act
of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C. app. § 2305 (1988).  Complainant
Reemsnyder, an independent contractor, alleged that Respondent
Mayflower Transit, Inc. (Mayflower) violated the STAA when it
cancelled his contract to haul household goods.  The ALJ found
that both the complaint and the request for a hearing were timely
filed, that Reemsnyder established a prima facie case, that
Mayflower proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
cancelling the contract, and that Reemsnyder did not persuade
that the legitimate reasons given were a pretext for
discrimination.  Accordingly, he recommended dismissal of the
complaint.
     Although permitted by 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(2), the
parties did not file briefs before the Secretary.  I have
considered the entire record that was before the ALJ.
     As corrected below, [1]  the ALJ's findings of fact, R.D.
and O. at 3-9, are supported by substantial evidence on the
record 
[PAGE 2]
taken as a whole, and therefore are conclusive.  See 29
C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(3).  Likewise, the ALJ's credibility
assessments are supported by the record and I defer to them.  
     I agree with the ALJ that the complaint and the hearing
request were timely filed.  I note that telephone complaints are
acceptable under the STAA.  See, e.g.,
Greathouse v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Case No. 92-STA-0018,
Dec. and Order of Remand, Aug. 31, 1992, slip op. at 2 
(telephone complaint timely under the STAA); Asst. Sec. and 
Kovas v. Morin Transport,Inc., Case No. 92-STA-41, 
Final Dec. and Order, Oct. 1, 1993, slip op. at 3 (noting that STAA 
complaint was made by telephone). 
     The ALJ properly applied the evidence to the law.  I agree
with the ALJ and find that Reemsnyder established a prima facie
case of a STAA violation.  R.D. and O. at 16.  I further find
that Mayflower provided convincing, legitimate reasons for
cancelling its contract with Reemsnyder, and that Reemsnyder was
not persuasive that the reasons Mayflower gave were a pretext for
discrimination or that his protected activities motivated the
discharge.  R.D. and O. at 20.  
     Accordingly, I adopt the appended ALJ's Recommended Decision
and Order.  The complaint is DISMISSED.
     SO ORDERED.

                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C. 




[ENDNOTES]
           
[1] 
 The R.D. and O. is corrected as follows.  At p. 3, second full
paragraph, line 8, replace "van operator" with "planner."  At 
p. 4, first full paragraph, line 13, delete the reference to 
Tr. 363.  At p. 6, second full paragraph, line 1, change "1990"
to "1991."