British man's lawsuit against CGV remains unresolved after nearly nine years

A court in Ho Chi Minh City has overturned a previous ruling that rejected a British manager's claim for VND 6 billion ($255,000) in damages against cinema group CJ CGV Vietnam for wrongful termination. The High People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City accepted Benedict Daniel Sullivan's appeal on Thursday, nullifying the initial verdict by the HCMC People's Court, which had dismissed his lawsuit against CJ CGV Vietnam Co. Ltd.

This development marks a significant turn in a legal battle that has spanned nearly nine years, effectively restarting the case.

The appellate court found that Sullivan, 61, had submitted only a "resignation letter," not a "contract termination and resignation letter," as previously concluded by the initial court. Furthermore, the initial court's assertion that Sullivan had voluntarily resigned was found to be unsupported.

The initial ruling had also claimed a mutual agreement on contract termination between the parties. However, during appellate proceedings, both parties confirmed that no such agreement had been made.

According to Sullivan's lawsuit, he started working for CJ CGV Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City in 2012 and later signed a contract to serve as the director of business and marketing from January 1, 2014, to April 30, 2015, with a monthly salary of $4,000 plus bonuses and commissions.

Sullivan claims he secured valuable business deals for the company, but on October 7, 2014, CGV CEO Dongwon Kwak unexpectedly transferred him to a CGV theater in District 7 as a floor manager, effectively ending his contract prematurely. Sullivan alleges this transfer was intended to avoid paying him commissions for the business deals he had secured.

The transfer caused Sullivan significant mental distress, leading his doctor to advise him to take regular days off. On December 17, 2014, Sullivan submitted a letter of resignation from his position as director of business and marketing, effective January 19, 2015. However, CGV terminated his business contract the following day, January 20, 2015.

Sullivan asserts that his resignation was from the director position only and did not imply he was leaving the company entirely. He contends that his business contract with CGV should have remained valid and that the company dismissed him without just cause.

Sullivan sought over VND 6 billion in compensation, including salary and subsidies for the remaining months of his contract, a business-class air ticket to the UK, commissions for the business deals he secured, and damages for early termination of the contract.

At the initial trial, the court found that Sullivan had a labor contract from January 1, 2014, to April 30, 2015. CGV's transfer of Sullivan from sales director to floor manager, while maintaining his salary, was deemed legal as per the Labor Code, which allows employers to transfer employees to new positions for up to 60 days due to business needs.

The court concluded that Sullivan voluntarily complied with the transfer and submitted his resignation on December 17, 2014, without coercion from CGV. Therefore, it ruled that CGV did not unilaterally terminate the contract illegally.

Regarding Sullivan's request for compensation, the court noted that CGV provided evidence of paying him over VND 3.1 billion, while Sullivan could not substantiate his claim for VND 6 billion.

Sullivan argued that the initial court's assessment was not based on objective reality, did not correspond to the evidence, and did not adhere to the cited law, prompting him to file an appeal. He stated that at the time of his transfer, CGV was not engaged in production activities, and the reason given for his transfer was "due to labor usage needs," which he claimed was contrary to legal regulations.

Sullivan also pointed out that he was transferred to a lobby supervisor position, not a cinema complex manager as the initial court concluded. Additionally, there was no agreement document regarding contract termination between him and CGV.

At the appellate court hearing, the defendant maintained that Sullivan's dismissal was in accordance with legal regulations. The appellate court, however, found that Sullivan did not submit a "contract termination and resignation letter," but only a "resignation letter," contrary to the initial court's findings. It also found no mutual agreement on contract termination between the parties, leading to the nullification of the initial verdict and restarting the case after nearly nine years of litigation.