Vietnam · Labor Law
One Year, Four Court Hearings, Two Assumptions Tested
By Trang N.
A year in court to learn: what my contract said, what the law said, and the assumptions I did not know I was carrying.
Employment law
Foreign investment
Contract Terms
What happened
Joining a business meeting as usual to unexpectedly find out — my first employment in Vietnam at a foreign-invested company ended. The local director, who is also a legal representative for the company, terminated my contract for the reason that I was not a fit for the company culture. My access to work systems was immediately cut while the conversation was going. Days later, HR sent an email describing my departure as a mutual agreement, which I had never agreed to. I replied stating there was no such agreement.
Why I filed
Taken by surprise, I later learned this is not uncommon here — the same questions come up again and again in public forums where employees go looking for help. Many employees would walk away at that point, and it is a reasonable choice with the thought that — a dispute process could be slow and costly, the outcome uncertain, and another job could come faster.
Finding the practice deeply unfair, I took the matter to local attorneys, who confirmed valid grounds for a lawsuit, so I filed it. I acted on it for two reasons: pursuing fairness through the court, and turning the situation into a learning opportunity to see first-hand how the Vietnamese court system and local law practitioners actually work.
It took a year and four court hearings. I learned along the way, and the process tested two assumptions sitting in my blind spot.
- Foreign ownership is not an indicator of practice
- A formal employment contract does not mean lawful compliance
Let’s analyze both
1Foreign ownership
The parent company was Dutch. I had worked with Dutch colleagues and founders, and thought the ownership was a signal for how the company in Vietnam would behave: if not the same culture, then should be a mix of the two.
When the dispute happened, I realized the operations in Vietnam were handled entirely the local way.
This is one company, and I am not describing every foreign-invested employer in Vietnam. I learned that business ownership is not an accurate indicator of business practice. What I was looking at is localization: the same thing companies do deliberately with products and pricing, happening quietly with employment practice in Vietnam.
2The contract itself
I remember receiving the employment offer after four rounds of interview and finally, a formal contract to sign. I had never been terminated and had no reason to expect it. Being new to working in Vietnam, I had no reference for what a normal employment contract looked like, or which terms the labor law fixed and which were negotiable.
So I read and signed the contract like a candidate would normally do, without weighing every clause in it. Few employees read a contract the way a lawyer would, and I was no exception.
Two impressions mistakenly kept me from looking closely at the contract: firstly, the company was foreign-invested, and I assumed an employer of that kind would already comply with the local law; and secondly, the contract itself looked settled, properly drafted, signed, and carrying the official company seal.
Only after the termination did I examine the contract properly with the attorneys and realize that a document can be correctly executed and still contain terms that do not comply. The seal can imply the company stands behind the document, but it does not guarantee whether the contents hold up against the law.
Checking Vietnam Labor Law, dissecting the employment contract
My contract contained three separate provisions on ending employment: one allowing the company to terminate for any reason, one requiring 30-day advance notice of termination from the employer, and one requiring 45-day advance notice of termination from me. Read against the law, they raised different questions.
| My contract (12-month) | Vietnam Labor Law 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Grounds for termination | Any reason | (Article 36, Section 1) The law specified a closed list of reasons for termination. Cultural-fit concern is not considered a valid ground for termination by law. |
| Advance notice required from employer | 30 days in advance | (Article 36, Section 2) At least 30 days for a 12-month contract |
| Advance notice required from employee | 45 days in advance | (Article 35) At least 30 days for a 12-month contract |
The termination reason from the company directly conflicts with the law. Article 36 sets a closed list of grounds for termination by the employer, and “any reason” is not on it. The employer’s notice period matches what the law requires; however, mine does not. The law asks only 30 days from an employee on a 12-month contract, while my contract asked 45 days. One contract clause goes beyond what the law permits for a legal termination; another asks more of the employee than what the law requires. Both moved in the same direction, favoring the company.
Then, what the company did was against its own clause.
The contract required 30 days of notice from the employer for any termination. I was given none — the termination took effect as it was announced. So the company did not only depart from Article 36 (terminating for a reason the law does not permit under Section 1), but also gave none of the advance notice required under Section 2. The company did not even follow the one clause in its own contract that actually complied with the law.
Under Article 39, any violation of Article 36 constitutes an unlawful termination, and that is what the court found in my case.
What the year actually involved
Weeks spent compiling and translating records and correspondence into Vietnamese, since all of my communication with the company had been in English. Many formal letters sent to the court requesting a hearing. Multiple trips to the courthouse to follow up in person. I did everything I could to fulfill my responsibilities as a plaintiff.
The court finally scheduled the case for hearing, after several delays.
I attended all four hearings. The first was cancelled due to the company’s absence and rescheduled. The second proceeded despite the defendant being absent again. At the third, the defendant finally appeared and took part in the proceedings. And the fourth was held for the delivery of the judgment.
My two assumptions, tested and rewired
Foreign ownership told me where the capital came from. It did not tell me which practices the workplace would run on.
A properly executed contract told me the company was organized. It did not tell me the terms inside it complied with the law.
Both of my assumptions were reasonable, but became costly in this context. What I would do differently is simple:
01
Treat a foreign-invested company as a local company unless the local management proves it operates to the parent’s standard.
02
Examine any contract against the law before signing, not after dispute.
The outcome
Finally, in July 2026, the court found the termination unlawful and required the company to compensate me. I was relieved with the court verdict — it restored the fairness that I was seeking, and validated the legal education I set out to gain in the beginning.
I came out of this journey with two assumptions rewired, a working knowledge of the labor law, and a clearer sense that how a system works on paper and how it works in practice are two different things I had to learn separately.
This is my account of my own case. The law is cited as written; how the court applied it is my recollection of the proceedings, not a legal interpretation. My own writing, drawn from first-hand experience. You’re welcome to link to it or quote briefly with credit; if you’d like to use more of it, please get in touch.
Connect