DATE:  December 2, 1994
CASE NO. 93-STA-28


IN THE MATTER OF

PATRICK R. WHITE,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

"Q" TRUCKING COMPANY, ALLIANCE TRUCKING 
AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES OF MICHIGAN

          RESPONDENTS.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                         FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

     Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order
Dismissing Complaint (R.O.D.) issued on August 12, 1994, by the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the captioned case, which
arises under Section 405 (employee protection provision) of the
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C.A.
§ 31105 (West 1994).
     Complainant alleges that he was unlawfully discharged
because he refused to operate a commercial motor vehicle when to
have done so would have violated Department of Transportation
regulations.  After conducting an investigation, the Assistant
Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health found the complaint
to be without merit.  Complainant objected to the finding, and
the case proceeded before the ALJ, who ultimately scheduled the
case for hearing to commence on August 16, 1994.  On August 8,
1994, Respondents moved under 29 C.F.R. §
18.6(d)(2)(v)(1993), to 
[PAGE 2]
dismiss the complaint in the case because Complainant had refused
to comply with certain discovery and prehearing orders, and the
ALJ has recommended that the complaint should be dismissed on
these bases.  The above regulation provides that where a party
fails to comply with any order of the ALJ:

     the administrative law judge, for the purpose of
     permitting resolution of the relevant issues and
     disposition of the proceeding without unnecessary delay
     despite such failure, may take such action in regard
     thereto as is just, including but not limited to . . .
     [ruling] that a decision of the proceeding be rendered
     against the non-complying party . . . .

     Upon review of the record in its entirety, I adopt the ALJ's
findings of fact as supported by substantial evidence, 29 C.F.R.
§ 1978.109(c)(3)(1993), and I agree that dismissal is
appropriate.  Cohen v. Roberts Express, Case No. 91-STA-
29, Sec. Final Dec. and Ord., Feb. 11, 1992; Walters and
Strode v. Karmichael Tank Service, Case No. 90-STA-12, Acting
Sec. Final Dec. and Ord., Jan. 22, 1991.  Cf. Ridings
v. Commonwealth Edison, Case No. 88-ERA-27, Sec. Ord. of
Dismissal, Sept. 20, 1991 (dismissal proper under Energy
Reorganization Act regulations where Complainant failed to appear
at evidentiary hearing and to cooperate in discovery process).  I
also agree with the ALJ that no costs and expenses should be assessed
against Complainant.  R.O.D. at 8.  Accordingly, Complainant's
complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
     SO ORDERED.

                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor
Washington, D.C.