On 5/9, 55-year-old Vinh confirmed she withdrew her lawsuit against the former Ca Mau City Medical Center (now Ca Mau Regional Medical Center) at the Ca Mau Regional Court. She hopes to reapply for severance under a more beneficial policy.
Vinh explained she initially misunderstood Decree 29/2023/ND-CP regarding workforce streamlining. She was unaware of the specific benefits and total payout for immediate resignation under this decree. In August 2024, she opted for severance under Decree 115/2020/ND-CP instead, leading to her termination under Decision 122.
She later discovered that Decree 29 offered a significantly larger severance package than Decree 115/2020/ND-CP.
On 27/12/2024, Vinh requested reconsideration from the medical center, but they claimed a lack of authority. Her subsequent appeal was rejected, prompting the lawsuit.
Vinh stated that during the legal proceedings, the court and the medical center clarified the procedures and benefits under Decree 29. This new understanding led her to withdraw the lawsuit and intend to reapply for severance under the correct decree.
Huynh Be Thao, director of the medical center, said he would report the withdrawal to the Department of Health for review and guidance. The department will consult with the provincial People's Committee if needed.
 |
Tai Thi Vinh, the midwife who sued the Ca Mau City Medical Center. Photo: An Minh |
Tai Thi Vinh, the midwife who sued the Ca Mau City Medical Center. Photo: An Minh
Vinh worked as a midwife at the Ward 8 Medical Station (now Ly Van Lam Ward) since May 1993, qualifying her for severance under Decree 29. As of 31/12/2024, she had 31 years and 8 months of continuous service and social security contributions.
On 4/4/2024, during a meeting about workforce streamlining, Vinh initially agreed to resign under the policy. Four months later, she received the application form for immediate resignation under Decree 29 but didn't sign it due to a lack of understanding and insufficient explanation from the center.
Her December 2024 termination resulted in a severance payment of just over 79 million VND instead of the over 400 million VND stipulated by Decree 29 – a difference of over 300 million VND.
On 26/8, during the initial hearing, Vinh’s representative argued that she had expressed her desire to resign under the government's policy on 4/4/2024. Her failure to sign the application was due to a lack of understanding, not a refusal of the offer. The phrase "immediate resignation" on the form caused her concern.
The plaintiff further argued that the medical center failed to adequately explain Decree 115, provide a copy of it, or document any wrongdoing by Vinh. The center also didn't consult with the trade union before or after her termination, nor did they provide her with the required 45-day written notice.
Thao referred to a document from 16/8/2024, where Vinh expressed her wish to work until retirement age and, if not possible, to resign under current regulations of the Law on Officials.
The defendant argued that the government's policy was Vinh's right, but she declined it as documented. While other officials submitted their resignation applications under the policy, Vinh did not. She only requested reinstatement after seeing the higher payouts received by her colleagues.
People's Assessor Nguyen Hoang Kha suggested a resolution: Vinh's procedural errors led to the incorrect severance. The medical center incurred no loss or gain regardless of the chosen severance policy. The assessor recommended Vinh withdraw the lawsuit and reapply under Decree 29.
The defendant agreed with this proposal.
Clause 2, Article 71, and Article 5 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code grant plaintiffs the right to withdraw all or part of their claims. Accordingly, the court will issue a decision to dismiss all or part of the case based on Article 217.
An Minh
