DATE:  June 9, 1995
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


       ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

     On December 2, 1994, I issued a Final Decision and Order in
this case, arising under the employee protection provision of the
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C.A.
§ 31105 (West 1994), in which I adopted the Recommended
Decision and Order (R.D. & O.) of the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) dismissing the complaint of unlawful discrimination. 
Complainant now requests that I reconsider that decision.
     As grounds for reconsideration, Complainant argues that (1)
the investigation of the complaint by the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) was inadequate, (2) the ALJ
demonstrated bias, [1]  and (3) the ALJ failed to rule on
Complainant's request for a protective order. [2]   Respondents
oppose reconsideration, arguing that the motion is untimely, the
Final Decision and Order is supported by substantial evidence,
and the allegations of misconduct are false.
     I have considered all arguments advanced by Complainant in
his reconsideration request.  None persuades me to revise the
previous disposition.  At this stage of the proceeding, the 
[PAGE 2]
extent of the Assistant Secretary's investigation is not at
issue.  Once Complainant objected to the investigation findings,
he was accorded the opportunity for a de novo hearing and
assumed the burden of proving unlawful discrimination.  As the
ALJ noted, "this is [Complainant's] case and he is under an
obligation to pursue it."  R.D. and O. at 6.  As to the ALJ's
purported bias, I find no suggestion of improper prejudgment. 
Roach v. National Transp. Safety Bd., 804 F.2d 1147, 1160
(10th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1006 (1988);
City of Charlottesville, VA. v. FERC, 774 F.2d 1205, 1212
(D.C. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1108 (1986). 
Finally, the record is devoid of any evidence that Complainant
moved to limit discovery.  Absent such a motion, the ALJ hardly
can be faulted for failing to issue a ruling.  Accordingly,
Complainant's request that I reconsider the Final Decision and
Order in this case IS DENIED.  In addition, Respondents' request
that they be reimbursed for costs and attorney fees, Opposition
at 3, IS DENIED.  See Billings v. Tennessee Valley
Authority, Case Nos. 89-ERA-16 et al., Sec. Dec., Jul.
29, 1992, slip op. at 6-7 (under the whistleblower provisions of
the Energy Reorganization Act).
     SO ORDERED.

                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.


[ENDNOTES]
           
[1] 
  Employment Services of Michigan assertedly offered to reinstate
Complainant and compensate him for his attorney fees in
exchange for dismissal of the complaint against "Q" Trucking
Company.  Complainant agreed to be compensated, refused to
dismiss the complaint, and insisted that Employment Services of
Michigan sign a contract employing him, at which time the ALJ
became "visable [sic] upset."  Motion at 2.

[2] 
  The complaint was dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 
§ 18.6(d)(2)(v)(1993) because Complainant refused to comply
with discovery and prehearing orders.  Complainant now alleges
that he requested the ALJ to limit discovery.