DATE:  April 3, 1995
CASE NO. 90-STA-31


IN THE MATTER OF

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR 
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH,

          PROSECUTING PARTY,

     and

WILLIAM R. LAJOIE,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

     This case arises under the employee protection provision of
the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 49
U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 1994), and its implementing
regulations, 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (1994).  Respondent
Environmental Management Systems, Inc., has moved for
reconsideration and reversal of the Final Decision and Order
issued by the Secretary in this case.  The Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and Health  opposes the motion.  I
reject Respondent's arguments that the Secretary's decision
should be reversed.
[PAGE 2]
     The Secretary previously found that Respondent discharged
Complainant truck driver William Lajoie because he engaged in
activity which is protected under the STAA.  In particular,
Lajoie complained about an inoperative hook up light at the rear
of his tractor which caused him to fall and bruise his leg as he
was attempting to hook up a loaded trailer after dark at an
unilluminated job site.  In requesting reconsideration,
Respondent argues that Complainant failed to communicate his
safety complaint adequately and that Respondent's Vice-President 
discharged him for insubordination rather than for complaining. 
     The testimony of both individuals regarding the
communication appears at pages 6-7 of the Secretary's decision. 
While Complainant's version more explicitly articulates a
complaint about a defective hook up light, even Respondent's
Vice-President recounts that the complaint concerned
Complainant's accident and the necessity for repairing the
tractor.  His testimony also suggests that he was not receptive
to discussing Complainant's accident, turning instead to the
daily work schedule, at which time Complainant became upset.  I
agree with the Assistant Secretary that Complainant adequately
communicated a safety complaint which Respondent then was
obligated to address.  Additionally, I am persuaded that
Respondent was unwilling to address Lajoie's complaint based on
the summary discharge of a co-worker who complained about his
tractor's inoperative headlight.  Final Decision and Order at 8.
     I have carefully considered all other arguments advanced by
Respondent.  None persuades me to reverse the Secretary's
previous decision.  Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for
Reconsideration is denied.
     SO ORDERED.

                                   ROBERT B. REICH
                                   Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.