- Green Growth
- Your Consultant
According to claimant Tran Chi N., on September 1, 2014, he signed an employment contract with Yamaha Vietnam for a term of 36 months(September 1, 2014-August 31, 2017), for the position of head of sales, with a wage of VND46 million ($2,060) per month. The role entails the management of employees, business development and sales.
On October 28, 2015 N. received Decision no. 28 by Yamaha Vietnam on terminating his contract. Two days later, the company issued Document no. 3011 on terminating the employer-employee relationship with N. The document stated that because of “the market and demand.” in order to restructure the company, the sales office needed to be dissolved. According to Article 10(36) of the 2012 Labour Code and Decree 05/2015/ND-CP, the company was terminatingthe contract and noticing the employee 30 days in advance.
The employee claims that on January 1, 2016 Yamaha Vietnam signed a contract with a new employee for his position and continued to post recruitment notices, so it must have a demand for employees in its sales department—which effectively means Yamaha’s reason for terminating his contract was false. He said that Yamaha unilaterally terminated his contract, which goes against employment regulations.
The tribunal said that N. should have sued right after receiving the notice, but the claimant’s representative asserted that the client was shocked and did not know the law so he did not sue until a while afterwards.
At the moment, the Hanoi People’s Court is waiting for Yamaha Vietnam to submit its company charter as an additional piece of evidence.
Last October, a group of seven employees sued ANZ Vietnam, asking for proper compensation when the bank unilaterally terminated their employment contracts.
|More than 110,000 Yamaha Nozza Grande bikes recalled|
|Yamaha Viet Nam recalls more than 95,000 motorbikes|