On Monday morning, more than three hundred workers at an FDI plant walk out together after the company announces cuts to the night-shift allowance. Management wants to label it an illegal strike and prepare mass discipline, while the grassroots union says the collective is only claiming legitimate interests. Both labels are premature. Vietnamese law views a strike through procedure: a walkout born of genuine grievance can still be illegal if statutory steps were skipped, and a procedurally correct strike is a collective right the company must respect even when production losses are plain.
The legal framework: a strike is the last station of a collective interest dispute
Strikes are governed by Articles 198 to 209 of the Labour Code No. 45/2019/QH14, within the logic of collective labour disputes over interests: if negotiation fails, a labour mediator steps in under Article 188; if mediation fails or is not held in time, the collective may ask the Labour Arbitration Council to resolve the dispute, although under Article 189 that council acts only where both sides consent, or may move into the strike procedure. That procedure requires polling the labour collective, issuing a written strike decision and giving advance notice to the employer and the local labour authority within the statutory period.
Strikes are organized and led by the employee representative organization at the establishment, a role connected with the Law on Trade Unions No. 50/2024/QH15, effective from 1 July 2025. The Labour Code also lists cases where strikes are prohibited, such as enterprises essential to the national economy, security and defence, and bans exploiting a strike to damage property or obstruct non-striking employees. A court declares a strike illegal where the procedure was breached or a prohibition applied; organizers and participants may then owe compensation under the judgment and face discipline under internal rules.
Applying the framework: what management should do instead of confronting workers in the early days
The right response in the first 72 hours is not a disciplinary notice but verification of three layers of fact: whether the demands form a dispute over rights or over interests; whether the employee representative organization is leading the action through procedure or the walkout is spontaneous; and which lines must stop for safety rather than pressure. For an interest dispute such as an allowance claim, the employer’s leverage sits at the negotiating table and in procedure: bring in a labour mediator early, minute every negotiation round, and avoid statements treating every striking worker as a disciplinary offender, because dismissing participants in a lawful strike is prohibited and turns an interest dispute into a legal crisis.
Once the strike ends, settle three issues in writing: pay for strike days as agreed in the settlement or as decided where a court declares the strike illegal; a no-retaliation commitment toward workers who struck lawfully; and an implementation schedule for agreed demands, since most repeat strikes in practice grow out of post-strike commitments that were never honoured. Where damage came from acts of sabotage distinct from the strike itself, handle those individually with person-specific evidence rather than collective discipline.
Strike-response checklist for FDI management
- Activate contact points with the establishment-level employee representative organization and the local labour authority as soon as collective stoppage signs appear.
- Classify the demands as a rights dispute or an interest dispute to choose the channel: negotiation, a mediator under Article 188, or the Labour Arbitration Council with both sides’ consent under Article 189.
- Put human and equipment safety ahead of legal argument: shut lines down by technical procedure, secure hazardous areas, arrange medical cover.
- Keep an honest time-stamped record of events and preserve attendance and camera data for the later legality assessment.
- Issue no blanket disciplinary decisions while the strike is running; individual measures must wait for the legality conclusion and separate evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What should an FDI company do when workers strike?
First protect safety, keep dialogue open with the employee representative organization and inform the local labour authority. Then identify whether the demands form a rights dispute or an interest dispute, and return to negotiation or invite a labour mediator under Article 188 of the Labour Code. What not to do is announce discipline immediately: deciding whether a strike is lawful belongs to the courts, and a wrong reaction in the early days usually escalates the dispute.
What makes a strike lawful?
A lawful strike must meet the conditions in Articles 198 to 209 of the Labour Code: it grows out of a collective interest dispute that went through negotiation and failed mediation, is organized and led by the employee representative organization, is supported by a poll of the labour collective, is decided in writing with advance notice to the employer and the labour authority, and is not in a prohibited sector or enterprise. Miss one procedural link and a court may declare the strike illegal.
Can the company dismiss striking workers?
No dismissal or discipline may be imposed merely for taking part in a procedurally lawful strike. Only where a court has declared the strike illegal and workers refuse to return after being requested, or where an individual commits a separate offence such as damaging property, may the employer consider discipline under internal rules with person-specific evidence. Collective punishment that ignores this distinction is the gravest legal error in strike handling.
What are the company’s responsibilities when a strike occurs?
The employer must protect people and property, not obstruct a lawful strike, negotiate and mediate in good faith, and honour commitments agreed when the strike ends. If an illegal strike causes loss, the company may claim compensation through the courts against the responsible side. Conversely, breaching post-strike commitments or retaliating against participants exposes the company to legal liability and destroys workforce trust.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council