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

August 7, 2018

Labor Disputes in Laos: Options for Dispute Resolution under New Decree

Lao P.D.R. has long been a high-potential destination for foreign investors due to its abundant natural resources and strategic location. As the number of legal entities increased, the number of labor disputes have also rose accordingly. In the past, companies sometimes faced issues over the uncertain legal framework for resolving labor disputes.

In February 2018, to further strengthen the legal framework for employment in Laos, the Lao government issued the Decree on Labor Dispute Resolution No. 76/GOL (the “Decree”), which serves as the implementing regulation for labor dispute resolution mechanisms that were previously mentioned in the Law on Labor No.43/NA dated December 24, 2013 (the “Labor Law”). The Decree will help locally established companies to anticipate and plan for labor issues, and exercise better control during labor disputes.

The Decree sets a clear regulatory framework for two types of labor disputes:

  • Disputes related to the implementation of the Laos Labor Law, work rules of the labor unit in each company, provisions in the company’s employment contract or collective labor agreement, or infringement of other regulations related to labor.
  • Disputes related to benefits, such as salary, working hours, or social welfare, among other issues.

Under the Decree, the four main domestic approaches for employers and employees seeking to resolve labor disputes are compromise, administrative remedy, resolution by the Committee for Labor Dispute Resolution, or decision by the Lao People’s Court. Dispute resolution of an international nature is also covered by the Decree and can be addressed by way of relevant agencies or international protocols ratified by Laos. Generally, each approach takes into consideration both individual and collective disputes, the latter being characterized by claims pertaining to the rights or benefits of more than half of the employees in a labor unit or a business group (a new term defined under the Decree as a collection of labor units).

Compromise

An employer and individual employee or group of employees may wish to resolve a labor dispute through consultation to reach a compromise. To initiate the consultation, a proposal regarding the dispute must be submitted by one party to the counterparty. Each party may appoint a representative to lead the discussions or propose a third party to act as a mediator.

A successful consultation will include in writing the results of the discussions, including how the dispute in question will be resolved, and the signatures of all parties involved. The Decree stipulates that a compromise to resolve a dispute between an employer and an individual employee should be reached within 15 days from the date on which one party receives a proposal from the counterparty.

An employer may also face a dispute on a larger scale, involving a representative, or a representative organization, such as a labor union, acting on behalf of more than half of the employees in a labor unit or business group. In such case, the representative may submit their proposal to the employer to conduct collective bargaining. Similarly, the employer or a representative can initiate collective bargaining with a particular labor unit or business group if it believes that the conduct of the unit or group has a negative impact on the company’s business activities.

A collective labor agreement will seal the collective bargaining. To be enforceable, the agreement must be signed by all parties involved, registered with the Lao Labor Administration Authority for examination, and registered with notary authorities to ensure full enforcement. According to the Decree, a compromise to resolve a dispute between an employer and a labor unit should be reached within 30 days from the date on which one party receives the counterparty’s proposal.

In the event that the parties cannot reach a satisfactory compromise, they are free to use another labor dispute resolution approach.

Administrative Remedy

Administrative remedies provide recourse to parties in many types of legal areas, including labor, intellectual property, banking and finance, insurance, and more. However, this type of remedy often lacks a detailed process to follow, with procedures shaped through practice with authorities rather than actual rules or regulations. The Decree therefore endeavors to provide a detailed framework for the use of administrative remedies in labor disputes.

The process for obtaining an administrative remedy is initiated when a complaint is filed with the relevant Labor Administration Authority, whether at the village, district, provincial, or ministry levels. Depending on the type of employee or number of employees involved, a labor dispute may originate at one level and be escalated to higher levels.

At each level, a mediator will be appointed by the relevant Labor Administration Authority to find a satisfactory solution within 15 days from the date of receipt of the written claims of both parties by authorities.

The four administration levels in which an administrative remedy can be filed are outlined in the table below.

*At the district, provincial, and national level, this recourse is also available if one of the parties does not appear at the request of the responsible official on two occasions, without providing a valid reason.

At each administration level, a mediator will be appointed to find a satisfactory solution to the labor dispute at hand. The mediator’s duties include examining and considering the administrative remedy request filed by the parties involved; keeping a record of the information exchanged by the parties; creating a labor dispute resolution plan and calling relevant parties to take part in the mediation process; conducting the mediation process; certifying and ensuring that the mediation process is fair, timely, and efficient; recording the agreement that was reached during the mediation process, reading the agreement to the parties, and obtaining signatures from the parties; reporting the results of the mediation process to the Labor Administration Authority; and passing on the dossier to the Lao People’s Court if the matter cannot be resolved through the administrative remedy.

Resolution by the Committee for Labor Dispute Resolution

The Decree establishes the Committee for Labor Dispute Resolution (CLDR), which is responsible for resolving labor disputes related to benefits. The CLDR is a tripartite organization, comprised of a representative from the Labor Administration Authority, who will serve as the chair, a representative of employers, who will serve as a vice chair, and a representative of employees, who will serve as a vice chair. The employer and employees directly involved in the dispute will not be part of the CLDR but will present the details of their dispute to the CLDR representatives.

The CLDR operates at two levels: a central committee whose members are appointed by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare and a provincial committee whose members are appointed by each province’s Department of Labor and Social Welfare.

The CLDR will be tasked with reviewing labor dispute claims, requesting necessary information or seeking participation from relevant parties, arriving at a resolution, and notifying representatives in the tripartite organization. A dispute that cannot be resolved by the provincial committee may be escalated to the central committee or brought before the Lao People’s Court at the request of one of the parties involved. It is also noteworthy that the CLDR is the one body responsible for handling issues that cannot be resolved by way of compromise during collective labor dispute.

Decision by the Lao People’s Court

If a labor dispute cannot be resolved through compromise, administrative remedy, or CLDR resolution, the matter can be brought before the Lao People’s Court as a final recourse. The court’s decision would be enforceable within 15 days after being issued and is considered final. During these 15 days, the employee has the right not to work, and the employer has the right not to allow the employee to work nor pay the employee wages.

If the employee does not agree with the decision of the Lao People’s Court and decides not to work, the employment contract will be considered to be cancelled, with the benefits from the termination of employment dependent on the provisions set out in the employment contact, the company’s internal work rules, or other agreements made with the employer.

Similarly, if the employer does not agree with the decision of the Lao People’s Court and decides to not accept an employee within their workplace, the employee’s employment contract will be considered cancelled, with the employer being obligated to pay the employee’s severance and other benefits defined in the employment contract, and the company’s internal work rules.

Working during a Pending Labor Dispute

The Decree dedicates a section to ongoing fulfilment of an employment contract during a pending dispute, stipulating that employees should continue working during an ongoing individual or collective dispute, unless the CLDR explicitly orders the employees to cease work during the pending dispute. An exception is if the employees notice that work safety conditions have not been met and have notified their employer about the issue previously. In such case, the employees may decide not to work and must report the issue to the Labor Administration Authority immediately.

It is important to note that the employer will be at fault if it decides to close its workplace to employees without receiving approval from the CLDR or the employees to do so. In such case, the employer will be liable for payment of the salary of the employees who were unable to work during the closing of the workplace.

However, if the employer notices that an employee or employees have behavior that may cause damage to the company’s business, the employer may decide to restrict or prohibit access to those specific employees after consulting with the employee representative or labor union. The employer must also immediately report the issue to the Labor Administration Authority.

The new Decree for resolving labor disputes in Laos provides a promising legal framework to address contentious employment issues for investors seeking to do business in the country.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 31, 2026
On December 10, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Vocational Education No. 124/2025/QH15, which took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Vocational Education No. 74/2014/QH13 of 2014. The new law broadens the categories of institutions eligible to deliver vocational training, introduces vocational upper secondary schools, and shifts governance structures for private institutions from ownership-representative boards of management to stakeholder-based school councils. These reforms aim to diversify training providers, align programs with labor market needs, and create a more flexible, open vocational education ecosystem, offering expanded opportunities for foreign and domestic investors, universities, and enterprises. Some highlights of the new Law on Vocational Education are presented below. Expansion of Vocational Training Levels and Programs In addition to elementary, intermediate, and college—the three levels of vocational training program set out under the 2014 Law on Vocational Education—the new law expands the structure by introducing two new levels: Vocational high school training programs are placed between elementary and intermediate levels, and are aimed at combining upper secondary education with vocational training, expanding options for learners after graduating from the lower secondary level. Other vocational training programs are not specified in detail under the new law, but aim to equip learners with the capability to perform and handle one or several simple tasks of an occupation. Expansion of Vocational Education Providers The new law reclassifies and extends vocational education providers by classifying them into two distinct categories: Vocational education institutions, which include colleges, intermediate schools, and vocational high schools. Establishments participating in vocational education activities, which include vocational education centers, vocational-continuing education centers, continuing education centers, other centers with vocational education functions, enterprises, cooperatives, and higher education institutions. Vocational education providers may provide one vocational training level only, or several/all levels, depending on the type of provider. The
March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the