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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

April 3, 2023
Most employers know that terminating employees for poor job performance is not easy. But it is actually legally possible—if employers have the right approach and take specific precautionary measures. However, failing to take these precautions can mean that an employer is either stuck with an incompetent employee or on the losing end of a lawsuit for unfair termination. This article will lay out some essential considerations for employers in Thailand regarding termination of employment for poor performance. First, understand that “poor work performance” is a lack of performance or ability, or an inability to work with other employees. It does not constitute a violation of work rules or regulations. In some cases, however, an employee’s failure to act in accordance with lawful instructions or commands of the employer, resulting in poor work performance, could also be considered a violation of work rules or regulations. This may be the case if the work rules or regulations clearly state that an employee must strictly comply with the employer’s instructions or commands. Second, an employer can, in fact, terminate an employee due to poor work performance. For example, this may be possible in the following scenarios: Records show that an employee’s work performance has fallen below the employer’s required standards, and the employee has not tried to improve his or her work performance for three consecutive years. In addition, it does not appear that the employer was biased when giving ratings or scores for the employee’s work performance. The job description of the employee includes coordination with employees in other departments, but the employee has not been able to do so. Therefore, the employee was reassigned to a new job function, but the employee still did not improve. This suggests that the employee has a lack of interpersonal skills and is not
March 23, 2023
On March 19, 2023, Thailand’s new work-from-home (WFH) legislation amending the Labour Protection Act (No. 8) B.E. 2566 (2023) was published in the Government Gazette. It will come into effect on April 18, 2023. The amendment aims to enhance employee protections to accord with current global standards, provide alternative working arrangements for employers and employees, increase workforce efficiency, and strengthen employees’ job security and a better quality of life. As we detailed previously, the new WFH legislation allows employers and employees to reach agreements that permit employees to work remotely. Since there are no accompanying criminal punishments relating to this new provision, and the legislation incorporates the term “may agree,” it appears that this WFH provision is not mandatory but is primarily intended to facilitate and encourage remote working agreements between employers and employees. For more details on the WFH legislation, or on any aspect of employment law in Thailand, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
February 24, 2023
Many companies have moved to Southeast Asia to benefit from the advantages of this vibrant and diverse market. The region is already a manufacturing hub for a multitude of industries—computer and automotive products in Thailand, textiles in Cambodia, and footwear and electrical goods in Vietnam, to name a few—and an increasing number of companies worldwide are reconfiguring their supply chains to include regional suppliers. A key challenge is keeping up to date with employment law trends in these jurisdictions to ensure compliance with local regulations—and avoid costly, time-consuming business interruption. Here we outline trends and recent regulatory developments in Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam, and consider what they mean for employers. Cambodia The Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training (MLVT) is likely to pursue a more proactive enforcement strategy in 2023. Last May, the MLVT announced companies would be required to submit a twice yearly self-declaration on labour compliance through a new online system. The self-declaration form requires companies to confirm and upload evidence of compliance, and the MLVT online system—through which the ministry can easily determine if a company is compliant –generates a report that lists all fines. Companies should comply with the self-declaration requirement and carefully review the form to understand what fines will apply for non-compliance. On 1 October 2022, regulations relating to the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) pension system came into effect, and employers and employees began making NSSF pension contributions. Over the next five years, total compulsory pension contributions will amount to 4% of an employee’s wage, half of which is paid by the employer and half deducted from the employee’s salary. The contribution wage is capped at KHR 1.2m (USD 300). Employers are currently required to pay a relatively small amount (KHR 24,000, or around USD 6). This will increase to 10.75% over
January 19, 2023
The Thai parliament has passed the so-called Work from Home Bill—formally known as Labour Protection Act (No. 8) B.E. 2566 (2023)—which amends the country’s Labour Protection Act (LPA) to reflect current circumstances. The accompanying legislative remark states that the proposed amendments to the LPA will provide additional options for work arrangements between employers and employees, upgrade the level of labor protection, increase work stability, and improve quality of life for employees in Thailand. The legislation adds a single section to the LPA providing that an employer and an employee “may agree in the employment contract” that the employee is allowed “to bring work . . . to perform at home or at the residence of the employee or anywhere that the employee can work remotely through information technology, if the nature of the work permits.” The provision further provides that employers are responsible for ensuring that remote work agreements are in writing, either physically or electronically, and may include the following details: Period of the agreement; Normal working hours, rest periods, and overtime work; Criteria for overtime work, holiday work, and various types of leave; Scope of work and control or supervision by the employer; and Responsibility for arranging supplies and equipment, including necessary costs relating to the work. The amended LPA gives employees who work from home the right to refuse contact from the employer or the supervisor beyond working hours. In addition, employers must treat remote employees equally to on-premise employees. The most notable question surrounding this legislation is whether employers must allow employees to work remotely. The phrase “may agree” suggests that employers do not have to agree to allow an employee to work remotely. Another important aspect of the amendment is that there is no criminal punishment attached to it, which suggests that the legislation