• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Nanowski Vs His Employees
 

Nanowski Vs His Employees

on

  • 1,498 views

các Slide môn Law thuộc chương trình tiên tiến K49, NEU

các Slide môn Law thuộc chương trình tiên tiến K49, NEU

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,498
Views on SlideShare
1,494
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0

2 Embeds 4

http://thanhphamduy.blogspot.com 3
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Nanowski Vs His Employees Nanowski Vs His Employees Presentation Transcript

    • NANOWSKI VS HIS EMPLOYEES PAYMENT ISSUE Presented by: Phùng Đức Huy Nguyễn Quang Huy Hoàng Hữu Huy Trần Thị Huyên
    • CONTENT Nanowski case 1 Precedent 2 Decision 3 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 DECISION AGREE 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 Prohibition
      • Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
      • The 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 verdict
      • The defendant failed to defense the case.
    • Back to Nanowski case
      • Similarity:
        • 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 26 th , Mr Hoang Minh Hai signed in the announcement claiming that he would pay the severance allowance fees for these employees on May 15 th
    • WORKERS SUITING THEIR MANAGER IN HAI VINH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
      • Fact:
        • However, on May 15 th , the company did not pay for the employees the severance allowance fees as promised and extended the payment deadline to May 30 th
        • On May 19 th , 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 15 th
    • SUGGESTED DECISION FROM OUR GROUP
      • Based on the evidence provided, the company had sold almost of its assets before May 15 th , 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
    • Thank You !