VnExpress News The News Gateway of Vietnam
A HCMC court ruling rejecting a British manager’s claim for VND6 billion($255,000) in damages against cinema group CJ CGV Vietnam for “wrongful termination” has been overturned by the appellate court.
The High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City on Thursday accepted Benedict Daniel Sullivan’s appeal, nullifying the initial verdict by HCMC People’s Court which dismissed his lawsuit against CJ CGV Vietnam Co. Ltd, the largest cinema complex in the country.
This means that after nearly nine years of litigation, the case is now back to square one.
The appellate court found that Sullivan, 61, did not submit a “contract termination and resignation letter,” but only a “resignation letter”, contrary to the initial court’s finding. The initial court’s conclusion that Sullivan voluntarily resigned was also unsupported.
The initial ruling claimed a mutual agreement on contract termination existed between the parties, but during appellate proceedings, both parties confirmed no such agreement was made.
 |
|
Benedict Daniel Sullivan at the HCMC People’s Court in September 2023. Photo by VnExpress/Hai Duyen |
According to the lawsuit filed by Sullivan, he began working for CJ CGV Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City in 2012 and signed a contract to be the director of business and marketing from Jan. 1, 2014, to April 30, 2015, with a monthly salary of US$4,000 plus bonus and commission.
He was able to bring the company valuable business deals, but on Oct. 7, 2014, CGV CEO Dongwon Kwak unexpectedly transferred him to a CGV theater in District 7 as a floor manager, ending the contract prematurely.
Sullivan claimed that the transfer happened so that the company did not have to pay him commission for business deals he secured.
The transfer put him into a mental crisis and he was advised by his doctor to regularly take days off.
On Dec. 17, 2014, Sullivan submitted a letter of resignation from his position as the director of business and marketing effective Jan. 19, 2015.
However, CGV terminated its business contract with him the next day (Jan. 20, 2015).
Sullivan said that he only resigned from the director post but that did not mean he was no longer with the company. He only gave up his position as a director, and his business contract with the company was supposed to remain intact.
Therefore, he sued CGV, claiming that they had dismissed him without reasonable cause.
He asked the company to pay him more than VND6 billion in compensation, including salary and subsidies for the remaining months of his contract, a business-class air ticket to the U.K., commission for the business deals he secured, and compensation for the damage caused by terminating the contract early.
At the first-instance trial, the jury determined that the two parties had signed a labor contract with a term from Jan. 1, 2014 to April 30, 2015.
Due to a change in demand, CGV transferred Sullivan from sales director to floor manager and continued paying him a salary as stated in the contract. This was not against to the law, heard the court, because according to the Labor Code, “when facing difficulties or according to production and business needs, employers can transfer employees to new positions for a period not under 60 days.”
After receiving the transfer notice, Sullivan proactively complied, but then on Dec. 17, 2014, he voluntarily submitted a resignation letter without any coercion from CGV.
Therefore, the court ruled that there was no basis to determine that CGV had unilaterally terminated the contract illegally.
Regarding the British man’s request for CGV to pay him salary, subsidies and commissions for the remaining months in the contract, the court said the movie theater chain has provided evidence to prove that it had paid him enough, with a total payment of more than VND3.1 billion.
Meanwhile, Sullivan could not submit proof to back up his claim that CGV owed him VND6 billion.
Sullivan said the preliminary court’s assessment was not based on objective reality, did not correspond to the evidence in the file, and did not adhere to the cited law and therefore, he filed an appeal lawsuit.
He said at the time he was transferred, CGV was not engaged in any production activities, and the company’s reason given in the transfer decision was “due to labor usage needs.” Thus, the reason for the job transfer was contrary to legal regulations.
Sullivan was moved from the position of Director of Business and Marketing to that of a lobby supervisor (as noted in the notification and transfer decision), not to a cinema complex manager position as the first-instance court concluded.
Moreover, the case file completely lacks any agreement document between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the termination of the contract as the first-instance verdict concluded.
At the appellate court hearing, the defendant maintained that the plaintiff’s dismissal was in accordance with legal regulations.
- Reduce Hair Loss with PURA D’OR Gold Label Shampoo
- Castor Oil Has Made a “Huge” Difference With Hair and Brow Growth
- Excessive hair loss in men: Signs of illness that cannot be subjective
- Dịch Vụ SEO Website ở Los Angeles, CA: đưa trang web doanh nghiệp bạn lên top Google
- Nails Salon Sierra Madre
