A worker labours almost the whole year, resigns in December, and at Tet the employer announces that only those still employed receive the bonus. The sense of unfairness is real, but the legal answer lies in one specific document: the employer’s own bonus rules. This article analyses the common forms of Tet bonus conditions, the standing of the still-employed-at-payment condition, and how both sides handle disputes around this group of leavers.
The bonus rules are the deciding document
Bonuses, including the Tet bonus, are amounts the employer decides under Article 104 of the Labour Code based on production and business results and work completion, with bonus rules issued and publicised at the workplace. Whether a worker who left before Tet receives a bonus, how much, and in full or pro-rated by service time in the year — all of it is governed by the employer’s bonus rules, read together with any bonus clause in the individual’s labour contract and the collective agreement.
Three typical rule forms produce three different outcomes. Rules tying eligibility to being employed at the payment date: leavers receive nothing. Rules calculating by actual service time in the year with no presence condition: a worker who served nearly the whole year receives the corresponding pro-rated part even after leaving before Tet. Rules silent on leavers: the most disputed form, because workers argue by full-year contribution while the employer argues the bonus is a forward-looking retention policy. Where rules are silent, mediation and adjudication outcomes depend on interpreting the whole document set and the employer’s own application practice in prior years.
Is the still-employed-at-payment condition valid?
A bonus condition tied to the worker still being employed on the payment date is widely used and in principle sits within the employer’s right to decide bonus rules under Article 104, provided the condition is stated in rules publicised before the employee left. An employee joining and working under those rules is treated as knowing the condition when choosing their leaving date. The employer’s legal risk sits not in the condition itself but in two points: rules never publicised as prescribed, or the employer interpreting the condition arbitrarily beyond the rules’ wording.
A high-risk variant is the employer actively terminating contracts or pressuring resignations near Tet to cut a group’s bonuses. Where terminations are determined unlawful, the full restoration consequences of Article 41 of the Labour Code are triggered and the cut bonus becomes part of a much larger dispute. Likewise, applying the bonus condition inconsistently between leaver groups in identical circumstances is grounds for the worker representative organisation and inspectors to question the rules’ consistency.
How both sides should handle and prevent the dispute
A worker who has left should start by asking the employer for the bonus rules applicable to the relevant year and their own personal documents such as the contract’s bonus clause, then match the rules’ conditions against their leaving circumstances and send a written claim before considering labour mediation. Many cases resolve at this step because the employer discovers its own rules actually contain no presence condition despite years of habitually applying one.
For the employer, the right time to clarify the leaver bonus policy is when issuing the annual bonus rules, not when the Tet bonus list is already drawn. The rules should state four points separately: whether employees whose contracts ended during the year are included, how amounts pro-rate by service time, when leavers are paid if included, and the principle of consistent treatment across different leaving situations such as agreed termination, contract expiry and unilateral resignation. Rules clear on these four points eliminate nearly all disputes of this kind.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a worker who quits before Tet receive the Tet bonus?
It depends on the employer’s bonus rules and the bonus clause in that worker’s labour contract. If the rules tie eligibility to being employed at the payment date and were publicised beforehand, leavers are outside the bonus scope. If the rules calculate by service time in the year without a presence condition, the worker receives the corresponding part even after leaving before Tet.
Is a must-be-employed-at-payment condition lawful?
In principle yes, because bonuses are decided by the employer under bonus rules pursuant to Article 104 of the Labour Code. The condition must be stated in rules issued and publicised as prescribed before the employee left. The employer may not add conditions orally or apply them inconsistently between workers in the same circumstances.
What if the bonus rules say nothing about leavers?
That is the most disputed case. The outcome is determined by interpreting the whole related document set — rules, labour contract, collective agreement — together with the employer’s application practice in prior years. The worker sends a written claim grounded in their contribution during the year; absent agreement, the case follows individual labour dispute mediation and court.
What if the company pushes workers out near Tet to dodge bonuses?
Where a termination is determined unlawful, the employer bears the full restoration consequences for the employee under Article 41 of the Labour Code, and the bonus issue becomes part of that dispute. Inconsistent application of the bonus policy between leaver groups in identical circumstances can also be questioned by the worker representative organisation and labour inspectors.
Practical recommendations
A Tet bonus dispute for a leaver is almost never a question of general law but of one line in the employer’s own bonus rules. Workers should read that line before choosing a year-end leaving date; employers should write that line clearly from the start of the year, because by December every interpretation is suspected of motive.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council