I adopt the ALJ's analysis on this point to the extent stated. R.D. and O. at 4. Thereafter, Complainant was suspended for failing to follow instructions when he initially picked up the truck and freight at the beginning of the assignment and for abandoning the vehicle at the side of the highway after becoming ill. R.D. and O. at 7. R.D. and O. at 7-8.
Complainant makes issue with the appropriateness of the discipline.
It is uncontroverted that a Yellow Freight supervisor had threatened Complainant with discharge if he testified in favor of the co-worker. R.D. and O. at 9. Complainant points out that since Yellow Freight has never discharged any other driver based upon having received four warning letters of the type involved here, the true rationale for his discharge must have been the incidents of February 29 and October 5. Yellow Freight concedes that it has never discharged a driver for receiving four such letters. The burdens of proof and production adopted for use in STAA proceedings are set forth in McGavock v. Elbar, Inc. , Case No.