I?ll write this 3rd person and distort the name of the school slightly so as to protect the author from Thailand?s defamation laws. After you read, you?ll understand why, and I?m sure you?ll realise the identity.
I?d like to relate an experience at English F**** (EF) Chiang Mai, but first some background:
On January 19th 2005 The DoS (AKA Academic Director) of EF Chiang Mai discovered very irregular practices with the franchisee?s (EF?s representative) management of the franchise. On January 21st 2005 the DoS left the employ of EF?s representative, at the time he felt the departure was amicable.
On October 11th 2005 EF?s representative, after a long criminal investigation, was charged with criminal fraud at Mae Ping Police Station Chiang Mai. The charge book is open to the general public to confirm this information.
Subsequent to the DoS leaving EF:
1. EF?s representative didn't pay his DoS his last month's salary. The salary (minus annual leave) was later recovered through Chiang Mai Labour Court on 29th March 2005. Bank of Ayudhya Cheque No. 0025318, Account name xxx xxxxxxxx Co., Ltd. Account number 3190003002.
2. Soon after departure from EF a photocopy of the passport details of the DoS and a cover page with EF?s letterhead was faxed to many schools in the area he worked stating the DoS was no longer an employee of EF Chiang Mai. It was unsigned and didn't give the reason why the teacher had left. This may have been an attempt to discredit the DoS and prevent him from finding future work in Chiang Mai.
3. To protect his reputation the DoS sent an Email to his former teachers explaining the circumstance of his sudden departure. EF?s representative used his brother's translation of the Email to attempt to have criminal defamation charges brought against the DoS (max penalty is PRISON) at Phu Ping Police Station Chiang Mai about late Feb. A recorded delivery summons to attend this police station as a suspect was received by the DoS. Subsequently the investigating office cancelled this meeting and no further contact has been attempted by the investigating officer.
4. In addition EF?s representative sued the DoS for 5 million baht damages, as an alleged result of this Email, at Chiang Mai Civil Court using as evidence his brother's translation. The summons was served to the DoS by an officer of the court the day the DoS walked out of the labour court with his cheque.
5. A translation, prepared by a recognised (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) translation company, for the DoS differs from the franchisee?s at key points in the translation.
6. During the criminal fraud investigation of EF?s representative, the investigating police officer sent a recorded delivery request to the office of the country director of EF requesting certain information related to this investigation. Up to now EF have not responded.
7. The DoS sent Emails to the country director and academic operations manager (AOM) of EF requesting an investigation in to the behaviour of its representative in Chiang Mai. There was no response other than a short statement from the AOM telling the DoS to direct all further correspondence to the country manager.
The legal actions have not been concluded.
The Thai Penal and Civil codes place the onus on the defendant in defamation cases to prove their innocence. In a defamation case the defendant must not only prove they wrote the truth but they must also show they had reason to publicly speak the truth. Recently in Thailand there have been high?profile defamation cases brought by the Prime Minister against his critics. He used the defamation laws to attempt to silence these critics.
I want to ask EF whether this behaviour by one of its representatives is indicative of their policy towards employees who discover fraud at an EF Franchise. Please respond and let the TEFL world know.
Topic: EF/English First Thailand (Read 8512 times)