DATE:  March 17, 1995
CASE NO. 94-STA-25


IN THE MATTER OF 

JOHNNY E. GENTRY,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ROCKET EXPRESS, INC.,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                         FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

     Complainant Johnny E. Gentry brings the captioned complaint
of unlawful discrimination against his former employer, Rocket
Express, Inc., under the employee protection provision of the
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C.A.
§ 31105 (West 1994).  An employee is protected under this
provision (1) if he files a complaint related to a violation of a
commercial motor vehicle safety regulation or (2) if he refuses
to operate a vehicle because operation would violate a safety
regulation or he has a reasonable apprehension that the vehicle's
unsafe condition could cause serious injury.
     In his November 14, 1994, Recommended Decision and Order
(R.D. and O.), copy appended, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
recommended that Complainant's complaint be dismissed.  The ALJ 
[PAGE 2]
found that although Complainant engaged in protected activity
under the STAA when he reported alleged truck safety defects to
Respondent, [1]  this protected activity did not motivate
Respondent to discharge him.  R.D. and O. at 5.  Rather, the ALJ
found that Respondent was motivated by Complainant's subsequent
insubordination and the deleterious effect on worker morale of
his ongoing dispute with Respondent over his responsibility for
performing dockwork -- activities which are not protected under
the STAA.  R.D. and O. at 6.  As a result, the ALJ held that
Respondent did not violate the STAA because its reasons for
discharging Complainant were legitimate and nondiscriminatory. 
The ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence and,
thus, are conclusive.  29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(3)(1994).
     Accordingly, I adopt the ALJ's R. D. and O.  The complaint
IS DISMISSED.
     SO ORDERED.
                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.



[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   Beginning in January 1993, Complainant conducted thorough
inspections of his assigned trucks and conscientiously noted any
perceived safety defects.  R.D. and O. at 2.  On February 8, 9,
and 10, Complainant cited trucks because they lacked reflectors
on their rear doors and because of a lighting deficiency.  On
February 15, he noted an exhaust leak under the cab of one truck
at the manifold.  These safety complaints constituted protected
activity.  I find, however, that Complainant's associated
refusals to work on February 9 and 10 were not protected because 
operation of the trucks would not have violated Department of
Transportation regulations, R.D. and O. at 2-3, and Complainant
did not establish that the conditions reasonably posed a risk of
serious injury.  The ALJ did not explicitly reach the work
refusal issue.