Worker sanctioned for filing frivolous complaint

A nonresident worker was barred from working in the Commonwealth for two years for filing a frivolous complaint against a garment company.

Li Yan Ni was referred to the Division of Immigration for voluntary repatriation—or possible deportation if she refuses to depart the CNMI—after the Department of Labor found that her complaint against her employer was unsubstantiated.

Li raised numerous grievances against her employer, but the biggest was her assertion that there was too much pressure in the workplace.

Employed as a model-maker, Li said her work was too difficult for her and that her supervisors belittled her and verbally abused her because she was slow. However, based on her testimony, the real objection she had to model-making was that her lack of speed made her ineligible for overtime work and pay.

“The standard nonresident worker contract requires only that employers provide 40 hours of regular time work a week, so it was not a Labor law violation for respondent to deny overtime work to complainant,” said hearing officer Jerry Cody.

Among Li’s other complaints were that she paid a $10 fee to the Chinese Affairs Office in connection with her employment application; there was no water or toilet paper in her barracks; her workplace was hot and dusty; and her barracks was too small.

Cody said the fee was not a violation because it was not paid to or through the company, and it is too minimal.

An inspection by the Labor Department also showed that the garment company had made adequate provision for both toilet supplies and potable water in the barracks. Also, the heat and dust problems occurred while the workplace was undergoing construction. Thus, they were only temporary and have been cured.

Further, investigation showed that Li’s employer was in compliance with the requirement that each worker have 50 square feet of living space.

Li also alleged problems with food at the factory, and complained that the employer deducted $100 a month from her salary for food, whether or not she ate at the factory.

She, however, failed to prove that the food service was so deficient as to amount to a Labor law violation. Moreover, her contract approves the $100 deduction for food. “It is in the interest of respondents’ employees to have food provided for $100 a month, which is less than the actual cost of feeding a nonresident worker in the Commonwealth for a month,” Cody noted.

Li also failed to prove that the company discriminated against her by subjecting only Chinese workers to searches when they leave the workplace.

Even her claim that she did not receive a copy of her contract was dismissed, after her employer produced evidence that she had signed a copy of the contract in China.

“In summary, complainant has either failed to prove her Labor complaints, or has alleged facts that do not amount to Labor law violations, even if established,” Cody said. “Complainant has lost her right to remain and work in the Commonwealth by filing an unsubstantiated labor complaint.”