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​ 

November 24, 2021
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have provided the latest update to the Thailand contribution to Doing Business in…, a Q&A-style guide published by Thomson Reuters Practical Law that presents an overview of the legal framework for doing business in 63 jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter of the guide outlines Thailand’s legal system and key laws applicable to foreign companies doing business in the country. The chapter specifically covers the following main topics: Legal system: Thailand’s court system and codified legal system. Foreign investment: Lists of reserved business activities, restrictions on doing business with certain jurisdictions, exchange controls and currency regulations, and grants and incentives available to investors. Business vehicles: Ordinary partnerships, registered ordinary partnerships, limited partnerships, private limited companies, and public companies. Environment: Main laws and regulations, factory operation. Employment: Laws, employment contract requirements, work permits, and termination and redundancy. Tax: Taxes on employment, tax and nontax resident employees and businesses, corporate income tax, value added tax, special business tax, municipal tax, stamp duty, dividends, interest, intellectual property royalties. Competition: Important aspects of Thailand’s regulatory regime surrounding competition, centered around the updated Trade Competition Act. Antibribery and corruption: Laws, compliance requirements, regulatory authority. Intellectual property: Patents, trademarks, registered and unregistered designs, and copyright. Marketing agreements and advertising: Regulation of marketing agreements, Thailand’s Consumer Protection Act, direct marketing, role of the Consumer Protection Board and Food and Drug Administration. E-commerce: E-commerce laws and regulations, marketing and sales via online platforms. Data protection: An outline of Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act. Product liability: Procedures and regulations for product liability and product safety, including the Unsafe Goods Liability Act and the Consumer Case Procedure Act. Product liability: Key regulatory authorities for trade competition, environmental issues, and financial services. To browse, download, or print the Thailand chapter, please visit the Practical Law website.
October 25, 2021
Michael Ramirez, a counsel in Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution group in Bangkok, has updated the firm’s contribution to the Global Attorney-Client Privilege Guide, published by Lex Mundi. The newly expanded guide provides information on what constitutes attorney-client privilege in over 70 countries around the world. The Thailand section of the guide contains in-depth information on the function and applications of attorney-client privilege in Thailand (or, as explained in the guide, an equivalent concept enshrined in Thai law), including coverage of the following topics: Privilege in corporations Common interest doctrine Litigation funding Crime-fraud exception Work product doctrine/litigation privilege Other privileges including mediation, accountant-client and settlement negotiation The interactive guide features expert contributions by Lex Mundi member firms from jurisdictions worldwide. Readers can browse the contributions, generate country-specific reports, and compare attorney-client privilege in multiple jurisdictions. For more information, please visit the Lex Mundi website.
October 14, 2021
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has published an updated edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand for 2021. This guide outlines all of the key factors for starting and operating a business in the Thai market. Issues covered include: Investment incentives Financial facilities Exchange controls Import and export regulations Structures for doing business Requirements for the Establishment of a Business Operation of the Business Cessation or Termination of the Business Labor legislation, relations, and supply Tax Immigration requirements This publication is part of Lex Mundi’s Guides to Doing Business series prepared by member firms in more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide. The guides serve as a useful resource when planning an international business strategy or researching a new market.
September 13, 2021
With COVID-19 cases continuing to pose a significant threat throughout Thailand, many employers have ordered their employees to work exclusively from home in order to minimize their chances of contracting the virus. However, this luxury is not afforded to all employees—some are unable to work from home due to the nature of their work, and consequently they are placed in the precarious position of being exposed to possible infection. Thailand’s Social Security Office (SSO) understood these risks early in the pandemic and, in March 2020, issued guidelines through the Workmen’s Compensation Fund Office on employees’ entitlement to claim benefits from the workers’ compensation fund (WCF) if they contract the virus as a result of their work. The WCF provides medical-related assistance and compensation to employees who directly suffer from a work-related injury or sickness (subject to certain conditions). Falling ill with COVID-19 during the performance of work duties may constitute suffering work-related sickness, thereby allowing employees to claim compensation from the WCF by submitting the Kor Thor 16 form, a medical certificate, treatment records, records of the employee’s working hours, and other relevant documentation. Upon receiving a claim, the SSO will investigate by collecting facts and evidence from the employer, the infected employee and his or her colleagues, and any witnesses. The official will examine the employee’s duties and working conditions in detail, taking into consideration any relevant information, such as evidence regarding the employee’s travel or movements prior to falling sick. Once all the facts and evidence are gathered, the matter will be submitted to a medical subcommittee responsible for determining whether the employee’s onset of COVID-19 is due to his or her work. If the subcommittee finds that the employee’s contraction of the virus did indeed result from the performance of his or her work duties, the