DATE:  March 7, 1994
CASE NO. 93-STA-28


IN THE MATTER OF

PATRICK R. WHITE,

               COMPLAINANT,

     v.

"Q" TRUCKING COMPANY,

               RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                              ORDER OF REMAND

     Before me for review is the Recommended Order of Remand
issued by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the captioned
case, which arises under Section 405 (employee protection
provision) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982
(STAA), 49 U.S.C. app. § 2305 (1988).
     Complainant alleges that he was unlawfully discharged
because he refused to operate a commercial motor vehicle when to
have done so would have violated Department of Transportation
regulations.  After conducting an investigation, the Assistant
Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health found the complaint
to be without merit.  Complainant objected to the findings, and
the case proceeded before the ALJ.  Complainant thereafter moved
to join two additional employers, Alliance Trucking (Alliance)
and Employment Services of Michigan (ESM), as respondents in the
case.  Upon consideration of this motion the ALJ recommended that
the case be remanded to the Assistant Secretary for further
investigation concerning the status and liability of these
employers.
     I decline to remand the case to the Assistant Secretary for
further investigation.  An examination of the Assistant 
[PAGE 2]
Secretary's findings reveals that his investigation, which
concluded on May 4, 1993, involved Alliance and ESM, as well as
"Q" Trucking Company ("Q" Trucking or "Q").  ALJ Exh. No. 4 at 2,
Finding 4(b) and (c).  Although the investigation may have
focused on "Q" Trucking, the Assistant Secretary's failure to
find any liability reasonably can be construed as a finding that
Complainant's complaint similarly was without merit with respect
to Alliance and ESM.  The Assistant Secretary must determine
whether "there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation
has occurred" as the result of adverse action taken by any
"person," which is defined as "one or more individuals,
partnerships, associations, corporations, business trusts, or any
other organized group of individuals."  49 U.S.C. app.
§§ 2301(4), 2305(c)(2)(A).  In timely objecting to the
Assistant Secretary's findings, Complainant argued that all facts
had not been disclosed, e.g., "those facts that were
presented were presented wrong and not in full," and as early as
June 1993, Complainant expressly raised the possibility that Alliance 
and ESM also were involved. [1]   6/11/93 Letter to ALJ Roketenetz.
     In these circumstances, I find that Alliance and ESM
properly are joined as respondents.  Accordingly, the caption in
the above case hereby IS AMENDED to read:  Patrick R. White,
Complainant, v. "Q" Trucking Company, Alliance Trucking, and
Employment Services of Michigan, Respondents; and the case IS
REMANDED to the ALJ.  On remand, Complainant will be afforded an
opportunity to prove the liability of each respondent.  Attached
to this Order of Remand is a copy of Complainant's complaint and
the Assistant Secretary's findings for purposes of service on all
parties.
     SO ORDERED.

                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.



[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   The record documents Alliance as a carrier of automotive
machinery between its Haslett, Michigan, terminal and
manufacturing plants in Shreveport, Louisiana, El Paso, Texas,
and Linden, New Jersey.  "Q" tractors also hauled Alliance
trailers locally.  Prior to his discharge, Complainant operated
"Q" tractors between Findley, Ohio, and Pontiac and Detroit,
Michigan.  ESM was responsible for compensating and assigning
drivers.  The above arrangement is similar to that at issue in
Palmer v. Western Truck Manpower, Inc., Case No. 85-STA-
16, Sec. Dec. on Remand, Mar. 13, 1992, slip op. at 2-3.