Labor dispute over illegal dismissal of civil servants

I. Summary of the incident:

Mr. N was an employee at the Urban Planning Department of District X, Ho Chi Minh City. In 2005, he was transferred to become the Vice Chairman of Ward I in District X. In 2008, he was transferred to the District X Public Works Company as the head of the public property management department, under a civil servant employment contract. In 2018, the company appointed a new director, also a civil servant transferred from another ward. Due to the company’s restructuring, Mr. N was not trusted with any work. The company did not assign him any tasks, so in August 2018, Mr. N submitted a resignation letter. The District X Internal Affairs Department approved his resignation, but the company did not agree and left it pending. Mr. N continued to go to the company for several months but was not given any work. Discouraged, he stopped going to work in November 2018. From November 2018, the company stopped paying insurance for Mr. N, and in October 2020, the company issued a decision to dismiss Mr. N.

In March 2021, Mr. N filed a lawsuit against the public utility company of District X at the People’s Court of District X, requesting the annulment of the dismissal decision, payment of wages for the months he was not allowed to work, and full payment of insurance contributions for Mr. N.

II. Developments in the case

Regarding Mr. N’s lawsuit, the representative of the public utility company disagreed; the Internal Affairs Department of District X also stated that Mr. N did not work in a public service unit, so the provisions of the Labor Code applicable to employees working in enterprises should be applied. Therefore, the public utility company’s dismissal of Mr. N was lawful, as he had accumulated more than 5 days of absence in one month.

Mr. N’s representative argued that the company’s dismissal was unlawful, as civil servants should be subject to disciplinary measures applicable to civil servants, not the disciplinary regulations for ordinary employees under the Labor Code. Furthermore, the company acknowledged Mr. N’s employment status from November 2018 to October 2020 before issuing the dismissal decision. The District X Public Service Company is a public service unit under the Law on Civil Servants, Decree 32/2019, the Enterprise Law, and the Civil Code. Therefore, Mr. N’s lawsuit is well-founded and should be accepted; thus, the representative requested the Court to accept all of Mr. N’s claims.

III. Difficulties in terms of legal regulations

Current legal regulations do not officially recognize public utility companies as non-profit organizations, nor do they allow 100% state-owned enterprises to be non-profit organizations; furthermore, there are no regulations listing all types of non-profit organizations.

Wave of layoffs during difficult economic years

IV. Inter Justice Lawyers’ Perspective on Resolving the Case

We believe that the viewpoint of Mr. N’s representative is in accordance with the law. This is because:

1. Mr. N signed an employment contract with the District X Public Service Company as a civil servant; moreover, during his employment, Mr. N was transferred from a local government agency.
2. The Labor Code stipulates that if the Code does not provide a specific regulation, another law shall apply. Therefore, if the Labor Code does not specify a regulation regarding civil servants working in enterprises, the specialized law, the Law on Civil Servants, must be applied to properly consider and handle disciplinary actions.
3. The term “public service unit” is merely a concept; any organization that meets the regulations for a public service unit is considered a public service unit. District X Public Service Company meets all the conditions regarding legal status, ownership, and public services, so it is considered a public service unit. Therefore, Mr. N continues to work at the public service unit.
4. Since Mr. N is a civil servant working at a public service unit, namely the District X Public Service Company, his dismissal cannot be carried out according to the Labor Code. Therefore, the dismissal decision is unlawful.
5. The public utility company in District X illegally dismissed Mr. N, therefore it must pay his full salary and insurance contributions, and restore his rights.

V. Outcome of the case resolution

The court accepted all of Mr. N’s claims, overturning the dismissal decision of the public utility company in District X. The court ordered the company to pay Mr. N’s salary and insurance contributions for the period he was unemployed.