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

September 13, 2021

Tips for Employers on Employee Vaccinations in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

The latest COVID-19 outbreak in Vietnam, which began in late April 2021, has brought the economy and daily life to a standstill. As factories and businesses are forced to shut down, breakdowns in the global supply chain have begun to emerge in respect of products sourced from Vietnam, such as clothing and coffee. Due to the highly contagious nature of the Delta strain of the virus, previously effective measures such as lockdowns and isolation of infected patients have been insufficient; instead, the mass vaccination of the population is necessary. Vietnam recognizes this, and has begun a vaccination campaign with the goal of vaccinating 70% of the population by the end of 2021.

Businesses also recognize the need to vaccinate their workers in order to keep their factories and workplaces open. In this article, we explore whether employers in Vietnam may require their employees to be vaccinated, as well as associated disclosure and privacy issues under Vietnamese law.

Can an employer require its employees to be vaccinated?

Generally speaking, an employer cannot demand its employees to be vaccinated. There is no express power of either the government or an employer to mandate that an individual be vaccinated. However, due to Vietnam’s critical situation of skyrocketing infections and months of lockdown, the government is granting authorities more sweeping powers. On August 6, 2021, the government issued Resolution No. 86/NQ-CP on Urgent Solutions for COVID-19 Prevention and Control to Implement Resolution No. 30/2021/QH15 of the Government (Resolution 86). Resolution 86 provides local authorities with broad powers to prevent and control the COVID-19 pandemic. Under this resolution, the local authorities could mandate that employees working in an industrial park be vaccinated, and in this case, an employer located in the relevant area could demand its workers to be vaccinated.

If an employee refuses to be vaccinated in this situation, he or she may have his or her employment temporarily suspended, or the employer may be entitled to apply other measures, depending upon the latest law and guidance from local authorities in preventing and controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. As these regulations are rapidly changing and evolving, we recommend that employers check the most up-to-date regulations to determine their available courses of action in these circumstances.

While employers may be entitled to take certain cost-cutting measures in respect of an employee who refuses to be vaccinated, this would not form a basis to dismiss or unilaterally terminate the employee. An employee terminated on this basis could bring a wrongful termination lawsuit, and if the court found in the employee’s favor, the court would order the employer to (i) reinstate the employee, (ii) pay the employee the salary and benefits for the period during which he/she could not work, including all statutory insurance contributions over this period, and, (iii) pay the employee at least an additional two months’ salary as compensation for emotional distress.

Can an employer require an employee to disclose whether he/she is vaccinated?

Employers may request employees to voluntarily disclose whether they have been vaccinated, but there is no default duty on the part of the employee to disclose this information. An employee may be required to disclose this information if there is a government order mandating employee vaccinations in an industrial park or workplace, or if this duty of disclosure is set out in the employees’ labor contract, the employer’s occupational health and safety policy, the employer’s internal labor regulations (the internal working rules of the company that are registered with the local labor authority), or a collective bargaining agreement between the employees and the employer.

Employers are advised to review these documents, particularly their occupational safety and hygiene policies, to ensure they address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Employers may wish to include a duty for employees to provide information about their health status if it could affect the occupational health and safety of other individuals at the workplace. They may also wish to address COVID-19 testing within these documents, and specify that employees must consent to testing at the employer’s request. Under the Law on Occupational Safety & Hygiene, employers, together with the corporate-level trade union, must formulate occupational safety and hygiene policies, and employees are bound to follow them. Thus, if COVID-19 prevention measures such as testing and the duty to disclose COVID-19-related symptoms are included within these policies, employers can much more easily implement such measures in their workplaces.

Can an employer offer incentives or benefits to encourage employees to be vaccinated?

Employers may offer employees benefits to incentivize them to get vaccinated; however, there is a potential risk that this could be considered an instance of labor discrimination under the Labor Code. While vaccination status is not listed as a protected ground under Article 3.8 of the Labor Code, disability is a protected ground. Thus, if an employee was unable to get vaccinated due to an underlying health condition (which could be characterized as a disability), providing benefits to only vaccinated employees could be considered discriminatory. Nonetheless, considering Vietnam’s current critical situation, it is very unlikely that the labor authority or the courts would support an employee claim which could slow down vaccinations. Moreover, employers could provide a special exception to employees who could establish that their failure to be vaccinated was due to an underlying health condition to avoid any possibility of a discrimination claim.

Are there any regulatory requirements applicable to an employer’s collection, processing, or storage of information relating to employee vaccinations?

An individual’s vaccination status would be considered personal information, and therefore subject to protection under Vietnam’s privacy laws. These laws are currently scattered throughout different pieces of legislation, but a common key principle under them is that the collection, storage, use, processing, publication, disclosure, and transfer of information and materials related to the private life or personal information of an individual must be consented to by that person, unless consent for such transaction is exempted by law; and the use of such information must be consistent with the scope of consent given. Thus, an employer may only share information regarding its employees’ vaccination status with their informed consent.

While the law does not specify the form for an employee’s consent in circumstances such as these, we recommend obtaining clear, affirmative opt-in consent. This consent could be in a written document with a wet signature, or via email or an online website with a click-through mechanism. The consent form should include the following information and contents: (i) the purposes for the collection of the information; (ii) the scope of information use; (iii) the duration and form of information storage; (iv) to whom the personal information will be transferred; (v) persons or organizations which may access the information; and, (vi) the individual’s right to correct or review his/her information. Employers are bound to comply with the specifications stated in the consent forms.

Vietnam’s law on personal data protection will likely change in the near future, and under the prospective law, it will be incredibly onerous for employers to deal with information relating to their employees’ vaccination statuses. The Ministry of Public Security (MPS) issued a Draft Decree on Personal Data Protection (the “Draft Decree”) in February 2021, which is anticipated to go into effect sometime in 2022. The Draft Decree distinguishes between “basic data”; and “sensitive data”, and an individual’s medical information is classified as “sensitive data”. Organizations wishing to handle sensitive data must register under the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) under the MPS prior to engaging in this activity. This registration process involves the submission of an impact assessment report addressing the potential harm to data subjects due to the proposed processing and measures to manage, minimize, or eliminate such harm.

In addition to these registration requirements, the Draft Decree has broadened the data processor’s obligations with respect to obtaining informed consent and requires data processors to adopt administrative and technological measures to protect personal data, and to report to the PDPC on the same. (For further details, please see “A Closer Look at Vietnam’s Hotly Debated Draft Decree on Personal Data Protection.”) Thus, after the Draft Decree is finalized and takes effect, it will be extremely onerous for employers to collect and process data on their employees’ vaccination statuses.

Recommended actions going forward

We recommend for employers to carefully monitor government orders to determine if such orders entitle them to mandate employee vaccinations. Employers could also consider reviewing their labor contract templates, internal labor regulations, and occupational safety and hygiene policies, to determine if they need to be updated to address the current COVID-19 pandemic. These documents should include provisions obligating employees to disclose their vaccination status and to consent to COVID-19 testing. Employers should also open a dialogue with the corporate-level trade union (if one exists) as the trade union’s cooperation will be required in order to amend the internal labor regulations and occupational safety and hygiene policies.

Employers should also draft consent forms for the handling of information relating to their employees’ vaccination statuses which comply with the law, and msonitor the status of the Draft Decree to determine if its policies for the handling of this information need to be updated.

Related Professionals

Practices

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 25, 2026, Thailand’s cabinet approved in principle a draft amendment that would extend mandatory social security coverage to three categories of workers currently excluded from Thailand’s compulsory social security system. The amendment, proposed by the Ministry of Labour, would modify the Royal Decree Prescribing Businesses and Employees Excluded from the Social Security Act B.E. 2560 (2017). Newly Covered Workers The cabinet-approved proposal would remove the exclusions for the following three categories of employees, bringing them within Thailand’s mandatory social security system: Workers in seasonal cultivation (pho pluk), forestry (pa mai), and livestock (liang sat) businesses that do not employ workers year-round and whose operations do not include other types of business activities. Notably, fishery (pramong) workers were excluded from this amendment following objections raised at a Social Security Board meeting on April 30, 2025, because employers and employees in the fishery sector can already agree to opt into social security coverage under fishery labor laws. Domestic workers and other employees of individual employers where the work performed is not part of a business operation (e.g., housekeepers, gardeners, drivers). This group has actively demanded inclusion in the social security system. Workers employed in street-stall businesses operating fixed street stalls (kan kha phaeng loi). The rationale for including street-stall workers is that their employers have fixed, identifiable places of business that can be inspected. Accordingly, workers engaged in itinerant street hawking (kan kha re) remain excluded. The expanded coverage would apply to both Thai and foreign employees who possess valid identity documents and work permits, including migrant workers who have been granted special permission to work in Thailand. The Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990) does not restrict social security registration based on nationality, allowing these workers to register as insured persons under section 33. Employer Obligations and Employee
Read More
September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More
August 31, 2026
Thailand has introduced a new regulatory framework that may expose foreign nationals who violate the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to deportation. The Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation B.E. 2569 was published in the Government Gazette on August 27, 2026. The regulation establishes an administrative process for referring foreign nationals for deportation where this is deemed necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. It does not create new substantive deportation powers, but it expressly identifies unlawful business conduct under the FBA—including nominee arrangements—as grounds for referral. Grounds for Deportation Referral The regulation sets out five grounds that may give rise to a referral to the relevant authorities: Unlawful entry into, or unlawful stay in, Thailand in violation of immigration laws. Unlawful employment or engagement in work in violation of laws governing the employment of foreign nationals. Carrying on business in violation of the FBA, including through the use of nominee arrangements. Forging official documents or using forged official documents. Committing an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The framework takes a broad approach, extending not only to the perpetrators of these acts but also to those who facilitate, instigate, or otherwise support such acts. Deportation Risk Following a Criminal Judgment Where a foreign national has committed any of the above offenses and has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a final judgment, the interior minister has the power to order deportation. This power also applies where a court has issued a final judgment sentencing a foreign national to imprisonment but has suspended the execution of the sentence, or has imposed a fine. A deportation order may also specify a period during which the foreign national is prohibited from reentering Thailand. FBA Noncompliance: Broader Consequences Noncompliance with the FBA—including
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More