trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nayCassation judgment No. 01/2006/LD-GDT dated April 4, 2006 on dispute over claim for damages between worker and labor-exporting company

COUNCIL OF JUSTICES OF trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT

CASSATION JUDGMENT NO.  01/2006/ LD-GDT DATED APRIL 4, 2006 ON DISPUTE OVER CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BETWEEN WORKER AND LABOR-EXPORTING COMPANY

...

On April 4, 2006, at trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay office of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Supreme People’s Court, a cassation review hearing was held to hear trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay dispute over claim for damages between worker and labor-exporting company, between:

- Plaintiff:Mrs. Le Thi Minh Tam, born in 1956; residing in: Tram Noi, Cam Van, Cam Giang, Hai Duong; represented by Mr. Nguyen Van Kinh as authorized.

- Respondent:Hai Duong Import and Export Joint Stock Company (hereinafter referred to as Hai Duong Import and Export JSC); headquartered in Tran Hung Dao Street, Hai Duong City; represented by Mr. Vu Trong Quan as authorized by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Company Director.

FINDING THAT

On January 14, 2003, Mrs. Le Thi Minh Tam and Hai Duong Import and Export Joint Stock Company entered into a contract to work in Taiwan for a period of two years.  Later, Mrs. Tam signed a labor contract with an employer in Taiwan.  Under trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay contract, Mrs. Tam works as a domestic worker with a salary of NT$ 15,840 per month.

On January 16, 2003, Mrs. Tam arrived in Taiwan and started work as a domestic worker.  On December 10, 2003, Tam wrote a letter requesting trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay employer and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay labor broker to return Vietnam for disease treatment.  On trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay same day, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Taiwanese employer also issued a written notice of termination of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay labor contract with Mrs. Tam.

On December 12, 2003, Tam returned to Vietnam and on December 17, 2003, she applied for a return to Taiwan, but Hai Duong Import and Export Joint Stock Company did not accept it.

On July 22, 2004, Mrs. Tam filed a claim for damages with trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court, requesting Hai Duong Import and Export JSC to pay trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay following damages:

- Damages for honor degradation as she was falsely accused of stealing money from trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay employer;

- Damages for salaries that she has not been paid (from August 2003 to November 2003);

- Damages of USD 600 for deposit of anti-evasion collected by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Taiwanese labor broker;

- Damages for salaries to be paid until trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay expiration of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay labor contract;

- Damages of USD 300 collected by Hai Duong Import and Export JSC;

- Damages for round trip airfare between Vietnam and Taiwan;

- Damages for management fee in Taiwan for 2 years;

- Damages for overtime pay on Sundays and holidays;

- Damages for food expense, 6 sets of protective clothing;

- Damages for health insurance etc.

In trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Judgment No. 01/STLD dated March 24, 2005, People’s Court of Hai Duong Province judged as follows:

- Terminate trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay contract to work abroad signed on January 14, 2003 between Hai Duong Import and Export JSC and Mrs. Le Thi Minh Tam.

- Turn down trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay claim for damages of Mrs. Le Thi Minh Tam regarding: salaries of 4 months in 2003 and remaining months of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay contract; USD 300 of service charge; outbound flight fare; allowance of 1-month salary for breach of prior notification obligation; damages for honor degradation; overtime pay in holidays; health insurance and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay resumption of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay job as arranged by Hai Duong Import and Export JSC because they have no justifiable grounds.

- Hai Duong Import and Export JSC has to pay Mrs. Tam:

Income tax: NT $ 19,008; brokerage Fee: NT $ 66,364; Vietnam’s tax: NT $ 17,424; overtime pay on Sundays: NT $ 23,232. Total: NT $ 126,028. Currency exchange rate in March 2005: 1 USD = 31.06 NT $; so NT $ 126,028 = USD 3,978.

- Mrs. Le Thi Minh Tam has to pay to Hai Duong Import and Export JSC USD 250.

Deduct from trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay amount to be paid by Hai Duong Import and Export JSC (3,978 – 250 = USD 3,728), converted into Vietnamese dong: VND 58,724,000. Thus, Hai Duong Import and Export JSC has to pay Mrs. Tam VND 58,724,000.

In addition, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Judgment also announced trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court fee and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay right to appeal of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay litigants.

After trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay first instance hearing, both plaintiff and defendant file appeals.

In trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Judgment No.140/PTLDdated July 1, 2005, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Court of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi judged:

- Pursuant to Point c Clause 2 Article 70 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nayOrdinance on Procedures for Settlement of Labor Disputes.

Annul trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay entire First Instance Judgment No.01/2005/STLDdated March 24, 2005 of People’s Court of Hai Duong Province.

Transfer trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case file to People’s Court of Hai Duong Province for incomplete verification, investigation and taking of evidence, which cannot be performed by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of Appeal. Hand over trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay entire case file on trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay labor dispute to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay People’s Court of Hai Duong Province for settlement under common procedures.

After trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay appellate trial, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay People’s Court of Hai Duong Province requested trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Chief Justice of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Supreme People's Court to reconsider trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Judgment.

In Decision No. 05/KN-LD dated November 16, 2005, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Chief Judge of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Supreme People's Court appealed trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Judgment No. 140/PTLD dated July 1, 2005 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Court of People’s Court of Hanoi, requesting trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Judges' Council of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Supreme People's Court to turn down trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Judgment above and hand over trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case files to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Court of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Supreme People's Court for re-trial as per trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay law.

In Conclusion No. 01/KL-ALD dated January 23, 2006, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Chief Procurator of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Supreme People's Procuracy concurred with trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appeal Decision of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Chief Justice of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay People's Supreme Court and requested trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Judges’ Council of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Supreme People's Court to annul trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Judgment No. 140/PTLD dated July 1, 2005 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Court of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Supreme People's Court in Hanoi.  Forward trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case file to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Court of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Supreme People's Court in Hanoi for re-trial according to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay appellate procedures.

At trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay trial, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay representative of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Supreme People's Procuracy upheld trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay point of view as stated in trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay above Conclusion.

CONSIDERING THAT

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of Appeal was not right when dismissing trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay entire First Instance Judgment No. 01/STLD dated March 24, 2005 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay People's Court of Hai Duong province; because:

Le Thi Minh Tam claims that she was forced to terminate trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay labor contract abroad; at trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay same time, she asked Hai Duong Import and Export JSC to pay damages for costs that she has paid for working abroad and benefits while working overseas.

At trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of First Instance, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay litigants have provided trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court with relevant documents and evidences, such as:

- A document written and signed by Mrs. Tam on December 10, 2003, with trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay content "…I have a backache, unable to continue my work. I hereby kindly request you and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay company to allow me return Vietnam for cure”.

Currently, Mrs. Tam claims that trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay employer slanders her for stealing money and forcing her to write that document with trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay reason for return Vietnam to treat her illness.

- Letter of termination of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay labor contract signed by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay employer Mrs. Nguyen Loi Lam signed on December 10, 2003, with trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay content:  “... She (Tam) is not honest; taking advantage of washing trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay owner's clothes, she stole a sum of money (USD) but she denied it. Thus, Mrs. Tam and I terminated trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay labor contract on December 10, 2003 and entrusted Nghia Ham Company to bring her home”.

- A statement of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Taiwanese labor broker;

- Document No. 685/VPDB-LD/2004 dated December 3, 2004 by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Vietnam Economic and Cultural Office in Taipei to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Department of Overseas Labor Management of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs.

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay above-mentioned documents have sufficient grounds for trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court to evaluate trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay reason for termination of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay labor contract.  trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of First Instance assessed trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay above evidence and determined that trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay labor contract in Taiwan was terminated due to Mrs. Tam's fault.  trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of Appeal was not right when quashing trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay First Instance Judgment and assigning trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of First Instance to investigate trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay faults of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay litigants upon termination of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay labor contract in a foreign country.

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of Appeal ruled that it is necessary to take trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay testimony of those involved in Taiwan, which is considered unjustified. Because there is a statement of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Taiwanese labor broker dated December 25, 2003 in trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case file. In addition, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay relevant people to whom trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay appeal requested to testify, currently residing, working in Taiwan, this request of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of Appeal is not realistic.

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of Appeal dismissed trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay First Instance Judgment and requested trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of First Instance to take a direct testimony of Mrs. Le Thi Minh Tam; and have to testify 03 times, which has no legal basis, violates Article 85, Article 86 Civil Procedure Code.  Mrs. Tam authorized her husband, Mr. Nguyen Van Ky, to participate in trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay proceedings; it is trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay responsibility of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay litigant to prove it.

Regarding Mrs. Tam’s claim for damages: trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of First Instance has settled it on trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay basis of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay existing evidence in trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case file.  trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of Appeal may re-evaluate such evidence in order to resolve trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay applicant's appeal in accordance with trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay provisions of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay law. In specific:

- Regarding airfare:

Article 9 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay labor contract dated January 2, 2003 stipulates:  “trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay employer shall provide trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay domestic worker outbound flight fare free of charge from Vietnam to China and after trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay domestic worker has completed labor contract with trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay employer, will provide trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay inbound flight fare to return to Vietnam."

Article 11 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay contract also stipulates: If trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay labor contract terminates for one of reasons stated below, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay domestic worker is solely responsible for all expenses associated with his/her return to his/her country:

“1) Knowingly breaking trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay law and reasonable order;

2) Having improper behavior which obstructs trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay completion of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay task appropriately and faithfully;

3) Committing fraud or dishonesty;

4) Constantly neglecting their duties;

5) Not having enough health to continue working following a physician’s confirmation or getting pregnancy or having an infectious disease”.

Clause 2 Article 5 of Manpower Supply Contract signed on January 1, 2003 between Hai Duong Import and Export JSC and Taiwanese labor broker stipulates that: “Regarding domestic worker or domestic helper: Round trip fares will be incurred by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay employer”.

According to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay content as mentioned above, there are sufficient grounds for trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court to assess and consider whether to accept or refuse trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay claim for airfare of Mrs. Tam.

- Regarding salaries of 4 months:

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay plaintiff claims that she has not received salaries from August 2003 to November 2003. At trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay first instance court hearing on March 24, 2005, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay plaintiff claims that she has not signed trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay payroll so it means that she has not received salaries.

In order to resolve this claim, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court may base on other documents and evidence available in trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case file, such as: trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay payroll provided by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay defendant, including trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay signature of Mrs. Tam; trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay record of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay plaintiff's testimony dated August 25, 2004, in which trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay plaintiff confirmed that she borrowed Mr. Nguyen Huu Phan's account opened at trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay VietinBank of Hai Duong to receive money from Taiwan to Vietnam; written statement of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay plaintiff dated August 25, 2004 confirming trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay receipt of money 01 time, about 13 million dong; fund transfer document dated July 22, 2003, transferred to Mr. Phan’s account trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay amount of US 899.33 = NT $ 31,320; fund transfer document dated November 13, 2003, transferred to Mr. Phan’s account trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay amount of USD 1000.44 = NT $ 34,400; report of Mr. Nguyen Huu Phan's testimony dated August 24, 2004, in which Mr. Phan confirmed receipt of money twice: trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay first time in June 2003, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay amount of over VND 10,000,000 (ten million dong), Mr. Kinh (received by Mrs. Tam’s husband); trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay second time around November 2003, also received by Mr. Kinh; verification record made by VietinBank of Hai Duong on August 25, 2004, confirming that in November 2003, he received a fund transfer of USD  976.64 = VND 15.261.000.As for trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay 20-day salary of November 2003, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay defendant confirmed that Taiwanese labor broker used it to buy Mrs. Tram flight ticket for her return to Vietnam.

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay above items of evidence are sufficient basis to assess whether Mrs. Tam received trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay salaries in August, September, October 2003 or not.

Regarding application of procedural law: For trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay dispute between Mrs. Le Thi Minh Tam and Hai Duong Import and Export JSC, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court must apply regulations of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Code for settlement. trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of Appeal was wrong when applying trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Ordinance of Procedures for Settlement of Labor Disputes because trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay first part (procedures for settlement of labor disputes) of this Ordinance expired from January 1, 2005.

According to above facts and matters, pursuant to Clause 3 Article 291, Clause 3 Article 297 and Clause 2 Article 299 oftrực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Code;

HEREBY DECIDES

Accept trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay appeal made by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Chief Justice of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Supreme People’s Court, quash trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Judgment No. 140/PT-LD dated July 1, 2005 of Appellate Court of Supreme People’s Court of Hanoi; refer trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case file to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Court of People’s Court of Hanoi for appellate re-trial as per trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay law.

^{____________________________________________}

- Causes for quashing trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Judgment:

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of Appeal was not right when quashing trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay First Instance Judgment and assigning trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Court of First Instance to investigate trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay faults of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay litigants upon termination of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay labor contract in a foreign country.

- Reasons for quashing trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Appellate Judgment:

Inadequacies in examination and assessment of evidence.