Because she was doing housework for relatives, the two parties did not have a contract. When suing for wages, the maid was denied by the court of first instance, but fortunately, the appeals court partially accepted her request.

On August 19, Can Tho City People's Court announced an amendment to the first instance judgment, partially accepting the request of the plaintiff Vo Thi Kim Hau, and ordering Ms. LTD and her husband to pay Ms. Hau 24 million VND (the money Ms. Hau spent on housework for Ms. D. and her husband for 24 months).

No employment contract because they are cousins

aMs. Hau said the appeals court understood her work to some extent and the verdict made her feel somewhat protected... Photo: N.NAM

According to the records, Ms. Hau said that because of their cousin relationship, Ms. D. hired her to help with housework from March 2012 to April 2014. The two parties did not have a contract, only a verbal agreement, with a monthly salary of 2 million VND. The first month, Ms. D. paid her 2 million VND. The following month, Ms. D. said she would keep the salary for her until she stopped working, then she would give it to her as capital, and she agreed.

In May 2014, Ms. Hau quit her job and asked Mr. and Mrs. D. to pay her salary, but Ms. D. did not pay, so she sued the court, demanding that Mr. and Mrs. D. return her 48 million VND.

On the contrary, Mrs. D. and her husband said that they did not hire Ms. Hau as a maid, but because they were cousins, and because she felt sorry for her illness, she let Ms. Hau stay at their house to get traditional medicine to treat her illness. The first month, the couple paid 2 million VND, including 1.5 million VND for encouraging Mrs. D.'s child to study and 500,000 VND to repair the grandparents' grave. The rest, because they did not hire anything, she did not agree to pay. During the time she was at her grandmother's house to be treated, Ms. Hau did some odd jobs around the house because she was fed and housed by her grandmother.

At the first instance trial, the People's Court of Binh Thuy District found that Ms. Hau's presentation was baseless and therefore rejected her request. Ms. Hau then appealed the entire verdict.

Court of Appeal: Paid maid service

According to the appeals court, Ms. Hau claimed that she stayed at the defendant’s house for two years to help with housework. The defendant claimed that she was asked to stay at the same house to create conditions for her to get traditional medicine to treat her illness. The panel of judges found that Ms. Hau’s treatment with traditional medicine did not require her to stay at Ms. D’s house for two years.

The defendant and his wife both admitted that because of work, both of them went to work during the day and no one was home. There was a 16-year-old child in the house who was still in school. Ms. Hau, who lived in the defendant's family, also did household chores such as cooking, washing clothes, scooping duckweed to feed the fish, urging and reminding the defendant's children to study... Article 179 of the Labor Code stipulates that household chores include housework, housekeeping, childcare... and other jobs.

Therefore, the defendant and Ms. Hau have a basis for the agreement to hire a maid for the defendant's family as Ms. Hau stated. In addition, during the process of resolving the case, Ms. D. also admitted to paying Ms. Hau 2 million VND for the first month. Thus, this can be considered the agreed salary between the plaintiff and the defendant. Although the salary of 2 million VND is lower than the minimum wage prescribed by the state, both parties agreed so it is not considered.

During her time working for Mrs. D.'s family, Ms. Hau also did other jobs for hire, such as working as a canteen girl from 5am to 7am for eight months for 800,000 VND per month, and babysitting from 11am to 1pm for 18 months for 550,000-600,000 VND per month. Thus, Ms. Hau was not a full-time worker for the defendant's family.

Although the parties did not sign a labor contract with each other, Ms. Hau lived and worked as a housemaid at Ms. D's house. Based on the provisions of law, if no labor contract is signed, it will be guaranteed for both the plaintiff and the defendant. Ms. Hau lived in Ms. D's house, ate together and lived together without calculating expenses. Therefore, the panel of judges accepted the proposal of the People's Procuracy to divide the plaintiff's requested amount in half, accepted part of the plaintiff's request, and forced the defendant couple to pay the plaintiff 24 million VND as a housemaid for 24 months.

According to Ho Chi Minh City Law