DATE:  December 28, 1993

Case No. 93-STA-27

In the Matter of:

DOMINIC J. PANGALLO AND WANDA PANGALLO,
     Complainants,

v.

PITTMAN TRUCKING COMPANY, INC.,
     Respondent

BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

                         DECISION AND ORDER

     Before me for review is the October 1, 1993, Corrected
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).  Complainants alleged that Respondent Pittman
Trucking Company, Inc. (Pittman) discharged them because they
complained about the safety of the tires on the tractor they were
assigned to drive.  The ALJ found that the Complainants did not
establish that Pittman violated the STAA when it discharged
Dominic Pangallo.[1]   although permitted by 29 C.F.R. §
1978.109(c)(2), the parties did not file briefs before the
Secretary.
     As corrected below,[2]  the ALJ's findings of fact, R.D. and
O. at 3-6, are supported by substantial evidence on the record
taken as a whole, and therefore are conclusive.  See 29
C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(3).  The ALJ's credibility assessments
likewise are supported by the record and I defer to them.  The
ALJ properly applied the evidence to the law.  I agree with the
ALJ and find that Complainants established a prima facie case of
a violation of the STAA.  R.D. and O. at 8, par 11.  I further
find that Pittman provided convincing, legitimate reasons for
firing Dominic Pangallo, and that Complainants did not persuade
that the reasons Pittman gave were a pretext for discrimination
or that their protected activities motivated the discharge in
whole or in part.  R.D. and O. at 8, par. 11, 12.
     Accordingly, I adopt the appended ALJ's Corrected
Recommended Decision and Order.  The complaint is DISMISSED.

[PAGE 2]
     SO ORDERED.
     
     ROBERT B. REICH
     Secretary of Labor



[ENDNOTES]

[1] The ALJ found that although Pittman took no direct action
against Wanda Pangallo, the discharge of her husband "operated to
force her to acquire a new driving partner acceptable to
Respondent.  Her inability or refusal to do so effectively ended
her employment with Respondent."  R.D. and O. at 8, par 10.


[2] The R.D. and O. is corrected as follows.
     On page 5, par. 11, the final transcript reference is
corrected to "Tr 227."  In par. 13, the first date is corrected
to "November 12, 1992."  In par. 14, delete the words:  "and
repair the damaged fuel tank."
     On page 6, par. 19, the first transcript reference is
corrected to "Tr 227" and the final transcript reference is
corrected to "Tr 227-228."
     In par. 20, delete the final transcript reference.