You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

April 7, 2020

Enforcement of Social Distancing Measures at Manufacturing Facilities in Vietnam

Last week, the Prime Minister of Vietnam issued Directive No. 16 providing regulations on a social distancing campaign during the COVID-19 global outbreak. Later, the Prime Minister issued guidelines on issues such as which businesses may continue to operate during the campaign. Additionally, many localities, such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and Binh Duong Province, have issued their own local guidelines.

Under Directive No. 16 and these guidelines, all manufacturing facilities may continue to operate, but are required to strictly implement measures to protect against and combat COVID-19. In recent days, the local health authorities in Vietnam have begun inspecting enterprises, including foreign-invested enterprises, to check for conformance with the new directive.

Following a few examples of inspection results, some points have emerged that warrant attention. For good compliance, the government inspection teams expected enterprises to do the following at their facilities, including dormitories for workers:

  1. Check the temperature of all employees in all areas, not just a select group, and have a plan for doing so.
  2. Have employees make a self-declaration on health, especially when requesting sick leave.
  3. Have a separate on-site pre-screening health check area, before sending employees to a primary on-site health check area (to avoid mixing any COVID-19 infected persons with other sick or injured workers, if any).
  4. Organize lunch in different shifts to avoid people congregating in large numbers.
  5. Maintain a two-meter distance between staff; maintain social distance of two meters during lunch periods and breaks.
  6. Prepare basins for workers to wash hands with soap/sanitary gel, provide soap/sanitary gel in restrooms and meal areas, and ensure that the workers are indeed washing their hands.
  7. Wipe down surfaces to sanitize regularly.
  8. Provide face masks for all workers.
  9. Hang banners and posters at the workplace displaying COVID-19 prevention tips, and provide flyers on COVID-19 prevention at company dormitories.
  10. Make plans for sanitizing vehicles to transport workers, including keeping social distance when boarding the bus, and wiping down door handles and areas in front of seats on the bus.

Some enterprises that did not comply well with Directive No. 16 were required to reduce the scale of their operations, or else be forced to suspend operations. It seems there were some companies that, due to the sheer volume of employees, could not comply well with the directive—thus, by reducing their scale of operations, they could operate with smaller teams of workers to ensure proper social distancing protocols.

It should be noted that enforcement and compliance criteria may differ among localities. However, based on the results of some of the first inspections, in order to protect employees and to avoid business disruption due to non-compliance, following the above protocols can be helpful to businesses.

For more details on the implementation of social distancing measures at the workplace, please contact us at [email protected].

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 16, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Yangon has contributed the Myanmar chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Myanmar chapter was prepared by Kyaw Min Tun, an associate in the firm’s Myanmar office. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Myanmar chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Vientiane have contributed the Laos chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Laos chapter was prepared by associates Naiyane Xaechao and Sayphin Singsouvong. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Laos chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Phnom Penh have contributed the Cambodia chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Cambodia chapter was authored by Jay Cohen, partner and director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office, and Chanvisal Lok, associate. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Cambodia chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the