U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
SECRETARY OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D.C.
DATE: May 17, 1990
CASE NO. 90-STA-15
IN THE MATTER OF
JOSEPH MORIN,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
TRANSPORT SOUTH, INC.,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order (R.D.
and O.) of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Joel R. Williams, issued on February 28, 1990, in
the above captioned case which arises under the employee protection provision of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C. app. § 2305 (1982).
Complainant, a truck driver, alleges that his employment with
Respondent was terminated in violation of Section 2305(a) because he made safety complaints to
Respondent.
After a hearing on the merits of the complaint, at which hearing
Complainant appeared pro se, the ALJ concluded that Complainant failed to establish that
Respondent had violated the STAA, and, consequently recommended that the complaint be
dismissed. Specifically, the ALJ found that Complainant had failed to make a prima facie case of
retaliatory discharge because he had failed to establish that he had engaged in a protected activity
and because he did not present evidence sufficient to raise an inference of a causal connection
between the alleged protected activity and his discharge. Moreover, the ALJ found, that, even if
Complainant had made a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, Respondent had
rebutted the primafacie case by establishing that it had a legitimate
management reason for Complainant's discharge. Finally, the ALJ also found that, while
Respondent may have had a dual motive for Complainant's discharge, neither of the motives
involved activity protected by the STAA.
In determining whether to accept the ALJ's recommendation that the
complaint be dismissed, I have limited my review, as required by 29 C.F.R. §1978.109(c),
1Accordingly, I have not considered
the documents submitted to the ALJ subsequent to the issuance of his R.D. and O. These
documents consist of a letter of March 19, 1990 (resubmitted and redated March 21) with
attachments from Respondent's counsel requesting that the ALJ transmit this case to the Atlanta,
Georgia, office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the United States (U.S.)
Attorney for the purpose of investigating Complainant for perjury under 18 U.S.C. §
1621(1), and a letter of March 27, 1990, with attachments from Complainant denying that he
perjured himself. Respondent seeks to invoke criminal action against the Complainant which is
outside of the scope of my jurisdiction under the STAA. I am not aware of any reason why
Respondent cannot refer its perjury allegations directly to the appropriate Federal office. The
record in this case is a public record and thus is available to the parties in its entirety. 5 U.S.C.
§ 556(d).