L O G O

NANOWSKI VS HIS EMPLOYEESPAYMENT ISSUE

Presented by:

Phùng Đức Huy

Nguyễn Quang Huy

Hoàng Hữu Huy

Trần Thị Huyên

CONTENT

Nanowski case1

Precedent2

Decision3

4

NANOWSKI CASE

Fact: Nanowski was responsible for day-to-day

operations. Some employees were not paid, then

eventually quited Nanowski was convicted of failure to pay

wages in violation of the state labor law

Claiman: Nanowski’s employees

Defendant: Nanowski

ISSUE

The statement from the law: “Whenever an employee voluntarily resigns, the employer shall pay the employees’ wages in full not later than the next regular pay day”

Nanowski argued that criminal law requires a “guilty mind” and he never intended to fail to pay his employees

What should we decide

DECISIONAGREE DISAGREE

PRECEDENT

Fact: In May 2000, BARRIE WILSON hired 129

individuals and agreed to pay them $ 15 per hour for their training and working

The employees were trained for two weeks, but did not receive the first checks

Barrie Wilson never paid them the wages as he agreed on the contract, and finally the employees filed the claims with the department of labor

ISSUE

The defendant claimed that the court has to prove that he was at least criminally intended to not pay wages for his employees

Did the court agree?No!

Rejected the argument that the intent is not the element of the General Statues § 31-71a

Claimed that failure to pay wages is a strict liability crime. ‘‘The statute is one of strict criminal liability designed to eradicate the evil of nonpayment of wages even though those without an evil purpose might end up ensnared in its net.”

The defendant continued to argue

If the intent of criminal negligence is not an essential element of the crime of failure to pay wages, then the statute is unconstitutionally vague

3 essentials of crime

Prior Statutory ProhibitionProof beyond a reasonable doubtThe defendant’s Capacity

The criminal intent to commit a crime

What did the court respond?

Disagree The constitutionality of the failure to pay wages

statute was upheld from the case of State v. Merdinger, supra, 37 Conn. App. 382

This public welfare offense properly does not require a criminal intent (mens rea) and imposes strict criminal liability

Therefore, the statue of the crime of failure to pay wages is constitutional

The court’s verdictThe defendant failed to defense

the case.

Back to Nanowski caseSimilarity:

Both of the defendants tried to argue that they did not have the “guilty mind” to not pay wages for their employees

Moreover, the criminal intent is an essential element of the crime

Decision

According to the previous case:

Nanowski had made a strict liability crime. The statement from the law: “Whenever an

employee voluntarily resigns, the employer shall pay the employees’ wages in full not later than the next regular pay day”

Nanowski should be convicted of failure to pay wages for his employees in violation of the state labor law

Implication in Vietnam Employer who does not establish payroll and cut labor’s

salary without the discussion with the trade union will be punished from 100,000 to 500,000 VND.

Employer who does not pay salary sufficiently, and timely, does not compensate for late payment will be punished from 1 to 5 million VND.

Employers who cuts labors’ salary without informing the labors, or pays below the minimum salary level in the case of stopping labors’ job not for the fault of labors will be punished from 500,000 to 10 millions

Implication in Vietnam

Added case for the implication in Vietnam

WORKERS SUITING THEIR MANAGER IN HAI VINH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Fact: Hai Vinh company locates in Thu Duc district,

HCM city and specializes in making shoes

During March, some employees were laid off.

On March 26th, Mr Hoang Minh Hai signed in the announcement claiming that he would pay the severance allowance fees for these employees on May 15th

WORKERS SUITING THEIR MANAGER IN HAI VINH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Fact: However, on May 15th, the company did not pay

for the employees the severance allowance fees as promised and extended the payment deadline to May 30th

On May 19th, with the support of the Labor Union of Thu Duc district, these workers submitted a claim against Mr Hoang Minh Hai, manager of Hai Vinh company for not paying them the severance allowance fees

ISSUE

The defendant reasoned that the company was trying to accomplish the cash borrowing process from banks so that it was incapable of paying for the workers on May 15th

SUGGESTED DECISION FROM OUR GROUP

Based on the evidence provided, the company had sold almost of its assets before May 15th , which gave the company enough cash to pay for the workers

Therefore, the company should be accused of criminal liability for intending not to pay the severance allowance fees for the workers

L O G O