DATE:   July 24, 1992
CASE NO. 86-STA-14


IN THE MATTER OF

MARK S. COMBS,

     and

ARTHUR C. SCHEID,

          COMPLAINANTS,

     v.

MASH TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                         FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

     This case involves alleged violations of Section 405 of the
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, 49 U.S.C. app. 
§ 2305 (1988).  At the request of the Associate Regional
Solicitor (Solicitor), who represents Complainants' interests in
this matter, the case was stayed in 1986 pending the outcome of a
related proceeding before the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB).  Before me is the June 16, 1992, Recommended Order of
Dismissal (R.O.D.) of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ),
deferring to the outcome of the NLRB proceeding and dismissing
the complaint.
     In 1988, the Solicitor informed the ALJ that the
Complainants had received full relief in the NLRB proceeding. 
The record reveals that the United States Court of Appeals
enforced in full the back pay provisions of the NLRB's order, 
[PAGE 2]
NLRB v. Mash Transportation, No. 86-3065 (4th Cir. August
7, 1987), and the NLRB thereafter specified the amount of back
pay due Complainants.  On May 31, 1988, and February 7, 1992,
ALJs issued orders to show cause why this case should not be
dismissed.  The Solicitor responded by letter to the 1992 show
cause order, stating that the NLRB has indicated that
Complainants have obtained full relief through the NLRB
proceeding.
     On June 25, 1992, an order was issued permitting the parties
to submit briefs in support of or in opposition to the ALJ's 
June 16 R.O.D.  The Order was sent to Complainants via certified
mail to their last known addresses.  None of the parties has
filed a brief as permitted by the June 25 Order.  
     The record shows that the Department has used diligence in
affording Complainants the opportunity to state whether the NLRB
proceeding afforded them full relief.  I have given "careful
scrutiny of all available information," as required before
deferring to the outcome of another proceeding, 29 C.F.R. 
§ 1978.112(c) (1991).  I therefore adopt the ALJ's 
June 16, 1992, R.O.D. in which he found that the NLRB's decisionwas fair and just and does no disservice to the purposes or
policies of the Act.  Accordingly, I dismiss this case.
     SO ORDERED.

                              __________________________________
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.


OAA:CHIGGINS:kmp:March 13, 1996
S-4309:523-9728