Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Fuelers disregarded inoperative placards.I was picking up Aircraft X at [the] gate. Upon review of the AML I observed MEL 28-06 was applied to the aircraft (inoperative single point refuel). During pre-flight the first officer observed the required INOP stickers in the applicable areas of the re-fueling panel per the MEL instructions.Eventually the fueler pulled up to the aircraft. The first officer and I observed a FUELING DOOR OPEN EICAS message; indicating the fueler was preparing to fuel the aircraft. However at that time we noticed that the fueler instead hooked up the single point re-fuel hose and was obviously disregarding the INOP placards on the fuel panel.At that time I immediately went outside to advise the fueler that over wing fueling was required. Upon telling the fueler those requirements; he advised me that 'he saw the INOP placards and by not being able to single point refuel the aircraft he was not able to do his job properly by overwing fueling the aircraft; and that the single point re-fuel system worked fine in his opinion and therefore he made the decision that it was okay to single point refuel.' Disregarding the inoperative system.At that time what I believed to be a fueling supervisor was present also; who then advised me the same as the other fueler said...'that the fueling panel and single point was working fine in their opinion and that they would take a delay (of an already delayed aircraft)! If they weren't allowed to single point re-fuel'. The fuelers single point re-fueled the aircraft; against the fact that I was telling them the system was inoperative and that they were required to over-wing this aircraft.At that point I felt it was necessary to make an AML entry for a maintenance safety inspection due to the fact that the fuelers used a inoperative and obviously placarded system. Maintenance did the requested inspection and found the aircraft airworthy.I find it necessary to submit this ASAP because the fuelers assigned to re fueling had a complete disregard to the inoperative system; found it appropriate to make an operational decision based on little system knowledge; and a complete disregard to regulations and safety and blatantly did not want to properly complete their job . I also find it disturbing that even the captain of the aircraft telling them not to do something; they still found it justified to do the incorrect and unsafe action.My suggestion to further help the fuelers in the future; is to ensure they understand the importance of complying with each aircraft/fleet requirements and captains direction. Perhaps even a review for the fueling supervisors to understand of the importance of complying with aircraft requirements.  Not to mention they MUST understand that as fuelers they are in no position to make operational judgement calls as to which system they should/shouldn't comply with when it is placarded inoperative.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported that fuelers elected to disregard 'single point refuel INOP' placard rather than follow procedures due to not wanting to take a delay.