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​ 

March 2, 2021
Maintaining positive employee relations is a top concern for virtually all companies. Many companies in Thailand—especially those located in the country’s industrial estates—have labor unions, while others rely on other non-union pathways for attending to the concerns of employees. In all of these cases, the union or collective group of employees also chooses members of the “employee committee” that is charged with fostering good relations and open communications with the employer through regular meetings dedicated to discussion of workplace matters. Companies with a workforce of 50 or more employees need to understand the roles of the employee committee and the specific rights accorded to the committee members, which are different from the rights of the other employees. Besides the obvious benefits that this understanding has for relations with their employees, it is also important if an employer takes disciplinary action against employee committee members, as violation of a committee member’s rights could result in the employer facing criminal penalties. The legal basis for these employee committees is the Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 (LRA), which stipulates that in any workplace with at least 50 employees, the employees or their labor union of the business establishment is entitled to establish an employee committee. Members are elected (or, in the case of a labor union, appointed) to three-year terms on the committee, with the total number of committee members depending on the size of the workforce, as shown in the table. Membership Requirements Among partially unionized workforces, labor unions are generally given precedence when it comes to control of the committee. If a labor union whose members account for more than 20% of the total employees in a workplace, the union gets to appoint the majority of the employee committee members (e.g., four out of a seven-person committee, five of a
February 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension
February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions