Opinion ID: 198014
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Filing a Complaint

Text: The facts of record support the ARB's determination that the activity in which Dutkiewicz engaged met the requirements for filing a complaint. There is no problem of lack of fair notice on this record and we affirm that there was substantial evidence that Dutkiewicz filed a complaint. We recognize Clean Harbors' legitimate due process concerns that the internal communications to the employer must be sufficient to give notice that a complaint is being filed and thus that the activity is protected. In the absence of such notice, the beneficial purposes of the act cannot be accomplished. Clearly there is a point at which an employee's concerns and comments are too generalized and informal to constitute complaints that are filed with an employer within the meaning of the STAA. The risk of inadequate notice to an employer that the employee has engaged in protected activity is greater when the alleged protected complaints are purely oral. Here, however, we have no trouble concluding that Dutkiewicz' oral and written complaints were sufficiently definite to put Clean Harbors on notice that he was engaging in protected activity. The record makes it clear that Dutkiewicz' superiors were well-aware of his fastidious compliance with safety regulations and his oral and written refusals to accommodate this practice for the sake of customer satisfaction. The agency accepted Dutkiewicz' testimony that when Cheyne and Ferrio repeatedly urged him to perform quicker pick-ups, he complained to them that such action would result in regulatory violations, and that he was obligated by law to make sure the customers' drums were DOT-shippable before he hauled them. He continued to say this to Cheyne throughout the remainder of his initial tenure at Clean Harbors. Because Cheyne did not testify, Dutkiewicz' testimony that he repeatedly complained to Cheyne was unrefuted. The ALJ credited Dutkiewicz' testimony, and found that Dutkiewicz did have a genuine, reasonable belief on many occasions that drums tendered to him for shipment did not comply with DOT regulations. The ARB accepted the ALJ's credibility determinations, and agreed with this finding. Dutkiewicz' testimony is further supported by the drum inspection forms which he contemporaneously created and filled out to protect himself from accusations of wasting time. Aside from the oral complaints and the drum inspection forms, Dutkiewicz wrote two letters to his superiors complaining that he felt pressured to engage in regulatory violations. The first such letter was written on March 5, 1994, to the president of Clean Harbors, Alan McKim. In the letter Dutkiewicz asserts that when a bad drum is accepted, Clean Harbors and everybody else connected with the drum owns all the problems that go with it.Thor didn't know if it was a [Dutkiewicz] problem or a customer problem. . . . So I designed a form for myself to show all concered what the drums were like when I arrived on site, were the problems solved, and were any [drums] refused. The second letter was written the day after Dutkiewicz received Cheyne's demand that Dutkiewicz get in and out of [the customer's premises] . . . regardless of the condition of the drums. Dutkiewicz responded with a letter to Cheyne and Ferrio, in which he specifically complained that on his last trip the drums were not prepared for shipment: there was visible waste on three drums, three drums didn't have any poison control labels on them, and two drums had lid rings upside down. The letter reminded Cheyne and Ferrio that: The DOT is not very forgiving if I get stopped because of one of my drums is leaking. . . . Not only will I get in trouble, its [sic] against the law. . . . I have a lot of ground to cover in a course of a day. I don't have time to waste on purpose at a customers . . . . And as long as customers have improper drums, I will have to spend time making them right.The facts here show Clean Harbors was put on notice and Dutkiewicz filed a complaint.