Frivolous complaint results in worker’s deportation

Nonresident workers were warned yesterday against using the complaint process as a means to change employers, as the Department of Labor dismissed a frivolous complaint filed against a garment company.

In an eight-page administrative order, Labor hearing officer Jerry Cody said that worker Xiao Yang Jun’s case against Marianas Garment Manufacturer Inc. lacked factual or legal merit and was filed for an improper purpose.

Accordingly, Xiao was ordered to depart the Commonwealth within 30 days and barred from returning to work in the CNMI for four years. He was also ordered to pay attorney fees incurred by MGM in defending the case against the worker.

“Simple dissatisfaction with one’s employment does not constitute legitimate grounds to sue an employer. A worker’s decision to leave one employer in search of a ‘better’ one is properly made at the end of the employment contract where, as a matter of law, either party may decide not to renew the contract and the worker may transfer with or without his former employer’s consent,” Cody said. “In short, the complaint system is intended to address legitimate violations of law; not to serve as a tool for early transfer relief.”

Xiao worked for MGM as a presser and/or maintenance worker from December 2000 until November 2003. On Oct. 21, 2003, he filed a labor complaint against MGM listing allegations concerning food, workplace conditions, discrimination, water quality, bathroom sanitation, lack of safety equipment, permit fee, failure to provide a contract copy, and unfair treatment.

The Division of Labor investigated the complaint and recommended that Xiao be denied transfer relief, ordered to depart the CNMI, and barred from working as an alien worker for two years.

At the hearing, Xiao reiterated and expanded on his complaints about work conditions. While Xiao’s evidence consisted solely of his own testimony, MGM presented documentation to prove its compliance with workplace health and safety regulations.

Cody noted that Xiao either failed to prove his complaints or alleged facts that do not amount to labor law violations.

“The allegations of unsanitary food, workplace conditions, toilets and drinking water were not proven and evidence to the contrary was substantial. The alleged ‘unfair treatment’ was vague and, in any event, was corrected during the employment when Xiao was transferred to a different supervisor; the alleged ‘discrimination’ did not amount to a violation; other issues were neither proven nor properly addressed through the grievance process, due to the fault of the worker,” Cody said.

He explained that Xiao disregarded the company’s grievance process by filing a complaint directly to the Department of Labor.

Cody further concluded that Xiao’s case was frivolous. Not only did the complaint lack merit, he said, but evidence also suggests that Xiao had ulterior motives in filing the case—to arrange for a return to China at MGM’s expense, then to return to work in the CNMI under a “temporary work authorization” status.