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

May 14, 2020

Laos Further Details COVID-19 Preventive Measures for Business Operators

Subscribe to Updates

On May 11, 2020, the National Taskforce Committee for COVID-19 Prevention and Control (NTCCPC) issued Recommendations, no. 071, on the Conditions and Measures for Operations of Business Operators during the COVID-19 Outbreak. The recommendations generally ease the required preventive measures and replace the conditions and measures issued on April 21; the new list of conditions and measures must be adopted before a company’s operations will be allowed to resume in full.

Workplace Conditions

  • The working environment must be spacious enough to guarantee social distancing of at least one meter.
  • The canteen must be sufficiently spacious, and operators must guarantee good hygiene, prohibit the common use of utensils, and ensure one-meter social distancing. Persons suspected of having COVID-19 symptoms must use a separate room.
  • Clean water (including for drinking), handwashing stations, alcohol gel, and masks must be available for all employees.
  • There must be a security guard to inspect personnel who leave or enter the premises.
  • There must be a cleaning team to dispose of waste properly. Waste disposal bins should have a lid.
  • Project, company, and factory operators must facilitate periodic inspections and visits from medical teams from the relevant authority who will carry out the inspection.

Measures to Implement

  • The body temperature of all employees must be checked prior to their entering or leaving the working area, dormitory, and canteen, from morning to evening every day. Additionally, alcohol hand sanitizer must be provided to all employees. Operators must also keep a written record of the symptoms of each person. Any employee who exhibits a fever (above 37.5 degrees Celsius), a cough, or difficulty breathing must be separated from the working area and put in isolated quarantine. Operators should immediately alert the authorities via emergency number 165 or 166, and have the person examined by a doctor.
  • Masks must be provided to all employees and worn during working hours and at all gatherings of personnel. Handwashing stations must be situated at convenient locations.
  • Employees must observe social distancing of one meter. Activities where this social distancing requirement cannot be guaranteed are prohibited (e.g., sports, celebrations, social events, etc.).
  • Prevention measures for drivers transporting goods to the premises, suppliers, or any relevant person from outside the company must be comparable to those for employees.
  • All projects, companies, and factories must have their working areas, canteens, toilets, dormitories, warehouses, and storage rooms cleaned every day after working hours.

Overall, these measures reduce the emphasis on health risks posed by large factories and reduce the NTCCPC requirements for business operators looking to resume operations, including the removal of prohibitions on new hiring, and on outside parties visiting the premises. Also removed are the requirements to have a car standing ready to transport symptomatic persons and a 24-hour reserve of water.

With Laos still transitioning out of lockdown, work has so far only been resumed on a rotation staff basis. To have this rotation requirement removed and receive permission to resume normal staffing, operators of projects, companies, and factories must first ensure that the above conditions and measures can be observed, and then request authorization from the relevant authorities. The authorities will then conduct an on-site inspection before authorizing the resumption of operations.

Failure to follow these measures may result in a warning, suspension of activities, or a fine, while the Penal Code allows imprisonment for breaching hygiene measures. In addition, operators will be considered responsible for damages if they are found to have not observed these measures.

For more details on these measures, or on any aspect of doing business in Laos during this time, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
Read More
September 30, 2025
Over the past several years, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, Thai employees and labor unions have faced reductions in benefits and welfare from their employers. Consequently, they have pursued various strategies to enhance their compensation packages. One such approach involves establishing employee committees to negotiate with employers regarding benefits and welfare. Additionally, companies with existing unions typically nominate representatives to serve on these employee committees. Many employers, however, remain unfamiliar with both the committee’s role and the heightened procedural requirements that apply when disciplinary measures are contemplated against committee members. Because any violation of a committee member’s statutory rights can expose the employer—and its directors or authorized representatives—to criminal liability, a clear understanding of the relevant legal framework is essential. The Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 (LRA) provides the statutory foundation for establishing employee committees. The purpose of the committee is to promote harmonious industrial relations and create a formal channel through which employees and employers can discuss workplace matters on a regular basis. Any workplace that employs at least fifty employees must, upon request by employees or the labor union, facilitate the creation of a committee. Members may be elected directly by employees or, where applicable, appointed by the labor union. Each member serves a three-year term. The LRA prescribes minimum committee sizes based on the employer’s headcount, as shown in the table below. If union members constitute more than 20 percent of the total workforce, the union must appoint at least one more committee member than the number of nonunion members elected by the general workforce. If union membership exceeds 50 percent of the workforce, the union acquires the exclusive right to appoint every committee member. Where multiple unions exist and their combined appointments would exceed the statutory committee size, the employer may lawfully refuse to
Read More
September 30, 2025
Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges. The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam. Applicable Entities In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education. The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education
Read More
September 29, 2025
In September 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 75/2019/ND-CP on Administrative Sanctions in the Field of Competition (Decree 75) to address the urgent need for clear sanctioning mechanisms following the implementation of the new Law on Competition in July 2019. However, after five years of enforcement, various gaps and inconsistencies have been exposed that hinder its application. These shortcomings have reduced the deterrent effect of the sanctioning regime, and created legal uncertainty for market participants. A recent case involving Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals’ acquisition of another chemical company—one of the first cases of economic concentration violation to be sanctioned by the National Competition Commission (NCC) since the Law on Competition took effect—highlights the practical difficulties under Vietnam’s competition law enforcement regime. In this case, although the transaction exceeded the statutory notification thresholds of economic concentration set out in the law, the parties failed to submit the required notification. This violation resulted in the NCC imposing aggregate fines of VND 1,423,982,880 (approximately USD 54,770) on the companies in September 2024. On appeal, Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals argued that the chairman of the NCC was legally entitled to issue a warning as the key punishment instead of a monetary penalty. However, the chairman rejected the appeal, citing Article 14 of Decree 75, under which the specific penalty and level for “failure to notify economic concentration” is a fine, not a warning. While the chairman of the NCC is generally empowered to impose penalties, a warning cannot be applied if the specific regulation for a particular violation does not provide for it as a sanction. This example shows the inadequacy and inconsistency of the regulations on penalties for violations of competition law, and underscores the need for an amendment of Decree 75 to resolve such conflicts
Read More