Wcms 482928

International
Labour
Organization
Complaint mechanisms
for Vietnamese migrant workers
An overview of law and practice
Tripartite Action to Protect the Rights of Migrant Workers

within and from the Greater Mekong Subregion
(GMS TRIANGLE project)
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Copyright © International Labour Organization 2015
First published 2015
Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal
Copyright Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization,
on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application should be
made to ILO Publications (Rights and Licensing), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22,
Switzerland, or by email: [email protected]. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications.
Libraries, institutions and other users registered with a reproduction rights organization may make copies
in accordance with the licences issued to them for this purpose. Visit www.ifrro.org to find the
reproduction rights organization in your country.
Complaint mechanisms for Vietnamese migrant workers : an overview of law and practice / Tripartite
Action to Protect the Rights of Migrant Workers within and from the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS
TRIANGLE project), ILO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. - Hanoi: ILO, 2015
ISBN:9789221300458; 9789221300465 (web pdf); 9789221300700 (CD ROM)
ILO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Tripartite Action to Protect the Rights of Migrant Workers
within and from the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS TRIANGLE project)
migrant worker / complaint / judicial procedure / good practices / labour legislation / Viet Nam
14.09.2
Also available in Vietnamese: Cơ chế khiếu nại đối với người lao động Việt Nam làm việc ở nước
ngoài:Tổng quan về luật pháp và thực tiễn
(ISBN 9789228300451, 9789228300468 (web pdf)), Hanoi, 2015
ILO Cataloguing in Publication Data
The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice,
and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part
of the International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.
The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely
with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office
of the opinions expressed in them.
Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by
the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or
process is not a sign of disapproval.
ILO publications and digital products can be obtained through major booksellers and digital distribution
platforms, or ordered directly from [email protected]. For more information, visit our website:
www.ilo.org/publns or contact [email protected].
Cover photo: © ILO/G. Sziraczki
Printed in Viet Nam

Foreword
Labour migration can have a positive impact, providing opportunities for social and
economic remittances and skills exchange. However to ensure the benefits of
migration are realized, effective protection measures are critical for addressing
problems encountered by workers incheding aceess to effective complaint
mechanism during the recruitment process, while working abroad or after returning
home. The timely resolution of a grievance can be the difference between a worker
returning to Viet Nam having benefitted from their labour migration, or being worse
off than prior to departure, burdened with a debt they cannot repay.
While it is understood that complications arise for both workers and authorities
when lodging, progressing or managing complaints, to date there has been no
assessment of the efficacy of the institutional framework underpinning the
complaints process. This report, Complaint mechanisms for Vietnamese migrant
workers: An overview of law and practice, presents the results of a study initiated
under the ILO GMS TRIANGLE project which considered both the laws governing
migrant worker complaints and the practical experiences of migrant workers and
authorities in navigating the complaints system. This report provides important
context regarding the challenges that may arise during the complaint making
process, prompting consideration of the policy and legislative measures that may
increase migrant workers’ access to justice.
The report finds that while there is a legislative framework that facilitates complaints,
gaps in coverage contribute to a lack of clarity for both workers and authorities. The
documented practical experiences of workers and authorities indicate that uncertainty
or a lack of information leave many migrant workers feeling unsupported or unsure of
how to lodge or progress a complaint, with many reports of unresolved complaints or
unsatisfactory outcomes. This in turn can have an adverse impact on government
policies designed to promote economic development and overseas deployment targets.
The report finds that recent legislative developments and enhancements to internal
government processes can be harnessed, through responsible implementation, to
drive positive advancements and address challenges in respect of complaint
mechanisms. The report makes a series of recommendations designed to promote
practical improvements to the complaints process; through legislative reform and
effective implementation of laws, conducting training and developing guidance
material to increase a wareness of complaints procedures, and conducting further
research to better capture complaints’ data.
The ILO GMS TRIANGLE project highly appreciates its collaboration with the
Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs and the
Viet Nam Association of Judicial Support for the Poor on the study, which was crucial
in facilitating analysis of the issues and contributing to a broader evidenced-based
discussion on this important issue.
iii
Table of contents
Foreword ...................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... viii
Executive summary........................................................................................................ ix
Acronyms and abbreviations .......................................................................................... xv
Chapter 1: Research approach ........................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose of the study ................................................................................ 1
1.2 Research methodology ............................................................................ 2
1.3 Research sample ..................................................................................... 3
1.4 Limitations of the research ..................................................................... 5
Chapter 2: International standards and regional initiatives on complaint mechanisms ...... 6

2.1 International standards.............................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Conventions and Recommendations ................................................. 6
2.1.2 Multilateral framework on labour migration ..................................... 8
2.2 ASEAN initiatives...................................................................................... 8
Chapter 3: Legal framework for migrant worker complaints in Viet Nam ........................... 11
3.1 Constitution of Viet Nam ......................................................................... 11
3.2 Law on Vietnamese Workers Working Abroad Under Contract
....................... 11
3.2.1 Scope of the law .............................................................................. 11
3.2.2 The ability of workers to make complaints ......................................... 12
3.3 Decree No. 119 ....................................................................................... 13
3.3.1 Timing for making a complaint ......................................................... 14
3.3.2 Rights and duties ............................................................................. 14
3.4 Law on Complaints .................................................................................. 14
3.5 Decree No. 126........................................................................................ 15
v
Complaint mechanisms for Vietnamese migrant workers: An overview of law and practice
3.6 Decree No. 95 ......................................................................................... 15

3.7 Other laws .............................................................................................. 15
3.8 Viet Nam Association of Manpower Supply Code of Conduct ...................... 16
3.9 Managing a complaint in practice: the official figures ................................. 17
3.10 Migrant resource centres ........................................................................ 20
3.11 Observations .......................................................................................... 21
Chapter 4: Complaint mechanisms in practice: results from the field research ...................... 23
4.1 Profile of the workers interviewed ................................................................... 24
4.2 Experiences with complaint mechanisms in practice ....................................... 24
4.2.1 Nature of the complaints ......................................................................... 25
4.2.2 Process for making a complaint ............................................................... 27
4.3 Analysis of field research .................................................................................. 31
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 33
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 35
vi
List of tables
Table 1: Interviewees by respondent group ............................................................................. 5
Table 2: Ratification of selected international instruments in the ASEAN region .................... 7
Table 3: Recommendations on complaint mechanisms from the 6th AFML ........................... 9
Table 4: Migrant worker complaints received by DOLAB 2007-11, by destination .................. 18
Table 5: Migrant worker complaints received by DOLAB 2007-11, by issue ............................ 19
Table 6: Migrant worker complaints received by selected countries of origin ......................... 19
Table 7: Sanctions issued by DOLAB against licenced recruitment agencies, 2010-14 ............ 20
Table 8: Provinces surveyed by district and commune ............................................................ 23
Table 9: Approximate number of migrant workers by provinces surveyed, 2007-13 ............... 23
Table 10: Problems experienced by migrants interviewed......................................................... 23
Table 11: Complaint channels for migrants interviewed ........................................................... 28
List of figures
Figure 1: Map of Viet Nam: Provinces surveyed ........................................................................ 4
Figure 2: Ranking of recruitment agencies in Viet Nam (2014) ................................................. 17
Figure 3: Percentage of interviewees by gender, age, and employment status

............................. 24
List of text boxes

Box 1: Key findings ............................................................................................................... xii
Box 2: The experiences of workers: What can go wrong?....................................................... 27
Box 3: Where is my son?........................................................................................................ 28
Box 4: No money, no return................................................................................................... 30
vii
Acknowledgements
This report is the result of collaborative efforts between the International Labour
Organization (ILO) and its tripartite partners in Viet Nam. The Viet Nam Association
of Judicial Support for the Poor (VIJUSAP) was indispensable in leading field
research, including by developing and conducting the qualitative interviews,
analysing the results and drafting the report. The Department of Legal Affairs of the
Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA), Viet Nam, also provided
invaluable support, including participating in field research and providing
background material that informed the review of the legislative framework
governing complaint mechanisms. Staff from the Department of Overseas Labour
(DOLAB) were also critical for participating in field research, a providing technical
support and clarification during finalization of the report.
Particular thanks goes to the interview team for conducting the field research, led
by Dr Ta Thi Minh Ly, Chairperson of the VIJUSAP. Interview team participants
included Mr Mai Duc Thien, Deputy Director General, Department of Legal Affairs,
MOLISA, Mr Nguyen Xuan Toan, Deputy Head, Division for receiving citizens and
settling complaints, MOLISA Inspectorate (Quang Ngai province), Mr Tran Quang
Duy, Inspector, DOLAB Inspectorate (Ha Tinh and Thanh Hoa provinces), Ms Pham
Thi Dam, officer of the VIJUSAP and Ms Nguyen Thi Mai Thuy, ILO GMS TRIANGLE
National Project Coordinator, ILO Viet Nam Country Office (Quang Ngai province).
Valuable contributions were also made by 34 participants from Government, the
Vietnam General Confederation of Labour, and civil society. They included migrant
workers who attended a validation workshop to discuss the preliminary results of
the project in July 2014. This was organized by the Department of Legal Affairs,
MOLISA and VIJUSAP.
The final report was prepared by the ILO GMS TRIANGLE Project Team in Viet Nam,
particularly Kristin Letts and Nguyen Thi Mai Thuy. Additional input and support
were provided throughout the study design and drafting process by Max Tunon,
Gyorgy Sziracki, Nilim Baruah, Anna Olsen, Sally Barber, Tran Thanh Tu, Tran Quynh
Hoa, Vu Kim Hue, Nguyen Thi Hai Yen and Phillip Hazelton.
This research was initiated under the ILO GMS TRIANGLE Project with the
endorsement of the Viet Nam Project Advisory Committee. The ILO GMS TRIANGLE
Project is funded by the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade.
viii
Executive summary
Introduction
As increasing numbers of Vietnamese workers travel to all corners of the world to

find employment, labour migration presents a significant policy challenge for Viet
Nam. Since the 1980s, labour migration has been actively promoted by the
Vietnamese Government as a means of employment creation and poverty
reduction, with more than 500,000 Vietnamese workers currently living abroad. In
support of this policy, the Vietnamese Government has also set an annual target,
under the National Target Programme on Employment and Vocational Training, of
sending 80,000—100,000 workers abroad each year during the period 2012 to
2015.
Labour migration has a positive impact, providing both remittances and skills
exchange. However to ensure the benefits of migration are realized, effective
protection measures are critical in ensuring that problems encountered by workers
are adequately addressed. Vietnamese migrant workers and authorities alike face
issues in managing complaints, however, to date there has been no assessment of
the efficacy of the institutional framework that supports the complaints process.
To better understand the operation of complaint mechanisms for migrant workers

in Viet Nam, and raise awareness of issues arising during the complaints process, in
2014, supported by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the
International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Tripartite Action to Protect the Rights of
Migrant Workers Within and From the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS TRIANGLE)
undertook a study of existing complaint mechanisms for Vietnamese migrant
workers, in cooperation with the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Labour,
Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA) and the Viet Nam Association of Judicial
Support for the Poor (VIJUSAP).
The study emerged from the basic premise that when issues arise, migrant workers
may be reluctant to voice their concerns. Workers may not realize that their rights
are being violated, fear retribution from their employer, know who to turn to for
assistance, or how to complete a written complaint. Many will be unable to identify
the appropriate authority with whom to file a complaint, or face barriers in
meeting requirements for lodging or producing sufficient evidence to support their
claim. This may be because paperwork has been lost or destroyed, because no
written contract was signed or contracts were never properly executed, or may be
due to discrepancies between contracts signed in Viet Nam and those presented in
the destination country, which are generally not in Vietnamese.
ix
The study consisted of a review of the existing legal framework enabling migrant
workers to lodge complaints, including relevant international standards, and
interviews eliciting the experiences of Vietnamese workers and authorities in
managing complaints. The results of that study, outlined in this report, found that
despite the existence of a legislative framework enabling migrant workers to lodge
complaints, legal protections are not universal and workers are experiencing
practical difficulties in progressing complaints.
VIJUSAP had overall responsibility for conducting the field research, including
developing and conducting the interviews, analysing the results, and preparing the
first draft of the report. MOLISA representatives were also active in the study,
conducting interviews with workers and officials in the provinces and providing
background material to inform the desk review of legislation governing complaint
mechanisms. The ILO GMS TRIANGLE also provided input into the interview
questionnaires and was represented on the interview team.
Framework governing complaint mechanisms
There are a number of international instruments and regional initiatives that

provide guidance regarding the effective implementation of complaint
mechanisms for migrant workers. These include the ILO Migration for Employment
Convention, 1949 (No. 97), the ILO Migrant Workers Convention, 1975 (No. 143),
the ILO Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181) and the United
Nations (UN) International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All
Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, 1990. The Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has also encouraged discussion and sharing of
ideas on this important issue, including through the 2007 ASEAN Declaration on
the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers (ASEAN
Declaration) and recommendations made at the 6th annual ASEAN Forum on
Migrant Labour (AFML) in 2013 which focussed on complaints and access to the
justice system throughout the migration cycle.
The current Vietnamese legal framework provides mechanisms for migrant

workers to make complaints. The primary statute is the Law on Vietnamese
Workers Working Abroad Under Contract (No. 72/2006/QH11) (Law on
Vietnamese Workers Working Abroad Under Contract). Supporting the operation
of this Law, the Decree on Penalties for Administrative Violations against
Regulations on Labor Social Insurance and vocational training and sending workers
abroad (No. 95/2013/ND-CP) (Decree No. 95) has also been enacted to deal with
violations, penalties, fines and remedial measures available for a range of labour
issues, including overseas labour supply. Directly relevant to the complaints making
process, in 2014, the Decree Stipulating Details of Some Articles of the Labor Code,
the Law on Vocational Training and Law on Vietnamese Workers Working Abroad
Under Contract (No. 119 /2014/NĐ-CP) (Decree No. 119), was passed with the aim
of improving complaint and denunciation mechanisms for workers, especially
overseas migrant workers. Another significant recent development has been the
Department of Overseas Labour (DOLAB) complaints database, established with
the support of UN Women, which is designed to capture details of complaints and
track their progress.
x
Despite the existence of a legislative framework in Viet Nam, gaps remain in

coverage and there are practical issues with implementing the laws, both for
workers and their families seeking to make a complaint, and for the authorities
responsible for managing complaints. Decree No. 119, the key piece of legislation
now governing the management of migrant worker complaints, does not cover
those workers recruited by state-owned recruitment agencies, or who migrate
independently.1 The fact that workers may be subject to different complaint
processes is notable, and complaint mechanisms need to be enhanced, and the
process for making complaints streamlined.
Decree No. 119 has also introduced the concept of “first-time” and “second-time”
complaints for migrant workers covered by the legislation, with first-time
complaints to be directed to recruitment agencies, and second-time complaints to
be directed to DOLAB. The new legislated requirement for recruitment agencies to
hear a first-time complaint may create new challenges for workers, officials and
recruitment agencies themselves. For a worker intending to lodge a complaint,
initially seeking a resolution through direct contact with a recruitment agency or
employer may often be prudent and mediation should be encouraged, particularly
noting potential benefits such as expediting a resolution and reducing the
administrative burden on government agencies. However, requiring complaints to
be directed to a recruitment agency as part of the formal, legislatively mandated
complaints process is likely to create practical issues, including potentially acting as
a deterrent for workers making a formal complaint.
With so many players involved in the migration process, the scope of the difficulties
workers may face is broad, and issues can arise from the time a prospective migrant
worker begins to consider moving overseas and continue even after their return to
Viet Nam. Difficulties in terminating contracts with recruitment agencies,
discrepancies between salaries agreed to prior to departure and actual salaries
paid abroad, as well as costs charged by recruitment agencies, all feature in
DOLAB’s data on migrant worker complaints.
Overall, the number of complaints recorded by the DOLAB Inspectorate is very

small (approximately 0.3 per cent) in comparison to the number of workers moving
abroad each year, and other countries of origin. When viewed in context of the
legislation, and having regard to practical issues faced by workers during their
employment abroad, as well as when progressing complaints, this is unlikely to be
because migrant workers are not facing problems. Rather, it suggests a systemic
problem with the complaint mechanism itself or that workers’ complaints are not
officially lodged. This may be because they are concerned about the consequences
of bringing a complaint or are not aware of the appropriate mechanism for doing
so, think it is unlikely that their complaint will be resolved, or are not covered by
legislation.
1
Workers who migrate “independently” in Viet Nam are not recruited by licensed recruitment
agencies but obtain employment abroad through brokers or direct negotiations with foreign
employers. This may be done in accordance with the law but may also occur without the necessary
authorization or documents, constituting “irregular migration”.
xi
Practical experiences of workers and authorities in managing complaints
Understanding the way legislation governing complaints for migrant workers is

implemented in practice is crucial in considering the effectiveness of the laws and
identifying where improvements can be made. Field research found that workers
experience significant challenges and barriers when attempting to lodge a
complaint. From interviews conducted with 44 migrant workers who experienced
difficulties during the migration process, problems identified related to key aspects
of the employment relationship or work conditions such as salary or working
hours. Many workers interviewed indicated that they did not have access to
specific information about their employer or workplace prior to migrating,
suggesting there is a correlation between false information or poor access to
information prior to departure, and the likelihood of an issue arising.
Almost one in every three (N=13) workers decided not make a complaint as they
did not know where, or how, to lodge it or believed it would not be given due
consideration. Three out of ten workers (N=10) who submitted a complaint
received a response. However, all of those workers felt that their complaint was not
settled satisfactorily.
Of the workers interviewed, nine in ten (N=40) were disappointed with their
migration experience, and more than four out of five (N=37) were still in debt. The
negative financial impact of an adverse migration experience is of particular
concern given that a key motivation for migrant workers to move abroad is the
prospect of employment opportunities, particularly increased income, including
for their family, and an ability to pay off debts quickly.
As key contact points for aggrieved migrant workers, the experience of local
authorities in facilitating the resolution of complaints was also an important
element of the field research. Officials interviewed observed that there was
ineffective coordination across government agencies in dealing with complaints
and there was no clear guidance on how to manage complaints. They also spoke of
the lack of cooperation from recruitment agencies in assisting to resolve the
complaints of workers.
Box 1
Key findings
Of the 44 workers interviewed, nine out of ten workers (N=40) were unhappy
with their migration experience.
When problems arise, they are likely to relate to key aspects of the employment
relationship or work conditions, such as salary or working hours.
More than four out of five workers (N=37) interviewed were still in debt.
Almost one in three workers (N=13) decided not to proceed with making a
complaint as they did not know where, or how, to lodge it or believed it would
not be given due consideration.
Of those who made a complaint, only three out of ten workers (N=10) received
a response. All of that group felt the complaint was not settled satisfactorily.
Of the 44 workers interviewed only six were female – a much lower proportion
than the proportion of women migrant workers in official statistics. Further
research needs to be conducted to determine whether women migrants are
more reluctant to, or face greater obstacles in, making complaints.
xii
Conclusion
Migrant workers in Viet Nam are experiencing difficulties both in lodging and
resolving complaints, and are unsatisfied with the outcomes when they do. Gaps in
legislation and the absence of streamlined processes contribute to a frustrating,
difficult and often fruitless complaints process. This not only results in unjust
outcomes for migrant workers, but can perpetuate the conditions in which
unscrupulous recruitment actors operate. A poorly regulated recruitment industry
in turn increases the likelihood that workers will need to make complaints, as well
as the incidence of irregular2 migration – as migrant workers seek to avoid
excessive recruitment fees and delays in migration. This impacts adversely on
government policies designed to promote migration.
Barriers to making a complaint include not knowing where, or how, to direct a

complaint, having insufficient evidence to support a complaint, or experiencing
difficulties in preparing a complaint, (particularly in written form) or obtaining
comprehensive and timely information from recruitment agencies. Providing written
complaints is especially difficult for those migrant workers who do not speak
Vietnamese as their first language; ethnic minorities are overrepresented among the
population of migrant workers. When complaints are lodged, many complainants do
not receive responses at all, or submit multiple complaints to multiple authorities
due to uncertainty about where they should be lodged, often without success.
Given that there is a legislative framework to enable ordering of complaints,

immediate efforts should be concentrated on facilitating effective implementation
and enforcement of these laws. Processes for managing complaints can be
improved and streamlined, for example through capacity building for officials,
awareness raising for migrants, and ensuring recruitment agencies fulfil their
responsibilities to workers. The practical issues experienced by workers and
officials should also be considered during any future revision of Vietnamese
legislation with a view to reducing the time and opportunity costs involved for
workers in making a complaint and regulations governing the responsibilities of
recruitment agencies.
The introduction of Decree No. 119 and the establishment of a database for
migrant worker complaints within DOLAB provide a timely opportunity to take
stock of the effectiveness of the processes and practicalities of making complaints,
and consider how they can be improved. Such efforts would support government
policy on labour migration and minimize the adverse impacts for migrant workers
who face problems abroad.
Recommendations
Legislative reform and implementation

1. DOLAB should consider how the practical operation of laws concerning
complaint mechanisms for migrant workers can be improved, having regard to
relevant international labour standards including ILO Convention No. 181, the
Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration, and AFML recommendations.
This process should involve close consultation with tripartite constituents and
local authorities and:
a. identify gaps in coverage, consider how to streamline and strengthen
oversight of complaints processes, and increase capacity for inspections;
2
An irregular migrant worker is a worker who leaves, enters, stays or works without the necessany
xiii
authorization or docaments required under the laws of that State.
b. consider aligning complaints procedures for all migrant workers to provide

greater clarity and certainty;
c. identify and rectify the barriers to making complaints, especially for
women or particularly vulnerable groups, including ethnic minorities;
d. enhance cooperation between recruitment agencies, local officials and
central authorities during the complaint making process, and consider
methods for enforcing compliance with regulations;
e. recognize the important role of local authorities, including People’s
Committees, in the complaints process;
f. work with, and draw on the expertise of, other government authorities
responsible for managing complaints, such as the MOLISA Inspectorate, to
further build internal capacity, oversight and review and ensure the
management of migrant worker complaints is monitored at the central and
local levels; and
g. have regard to regional best practice models.
2. Recruitment agencies should develop internal processes to facilitate their
legislated role in considering complaints in accordance with Decree No. 119
with a view to improving services for migrant workers, supported by DOLAB
and the Viet Nam Association of Manpower Supply (VAMAS).
3. Pending further detailed examination of existing legal provisions, MOLISA
should consider addressing the practical management of complaints during the
development of the Circular to support Decree No. 119, including enhancing
enforcement mechanisms, and developing a standard complaints form.
Training and guidance material

1. DOLAB and the MOLISA Inspectorate should provide training to local
authorities on procedures for managing complaints, supplemented by the
development of practical operational guidelines. Guidance material should
cover the scope of the laws, define key terms, highlight the rights and
obligations of involved stakeholders, and clarify which authorities have
competency to progress complaints on behalf of workers.
2. DOLAB and the MOLISA Inspectorate should develop guidance material for
workers on how to make a complaint, for dissemination by Employment
Service Centres (ESCs), particularly Migrant Resource Centres (MRCs), and local
authorities, with a view to enhancing the access of workers to justice,
supporting the operation of government regulations and policy and improving
links between ESCs, MRCs and legal aid services.
Research activities
1. Consider how to better capture quantitative and qualitative data on labour
migration complaints, including by:
a. DOLAB leveraging the capacity of its new database to capture
gender-disaggregated complaints data, data on complaints initiated or resolved
with recruitment agencies, and data on complaints initiated or resolved
through the court system, particularly in light of the new Decree No. 119;
b. DOLAB, VAMAS and the MOLISA Inspectorate undertaking research to
understand the position and possible operating constraints for recruitment
agencies;
c. VAMAS considering how complaints made against, and the handling of
complaints by, recruitment agencies can feed into monitoring of the
VAMAS Code of Conduct; and
d. Tripartite constituents working with local authorities to undertake further
research into gender-specific issues in respect of the complaint making
process.
xiv
Acronyms and abbreviations
AFML ASEAN Forum on Migrant Labour
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
DOLAB Department of Overseas Labour, Viet Nam
DOLISA Department of Labour, War Invalids and Social Affairs, Viet Nam
ESC Employment Service Centre
GDP gross domestic product
GMS TRIANGLE Tripartite Action to Protect Migrant Workers within and from the
Greater Mekong Sub-region
ICMW International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All

Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, 1990
MoLISA Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs, Viet Nam
MOU memorandum of understanding
MRC Migrant Resource Centre
UN United Nations
UN Women United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment
of Women
VAMAS Viet Nam Association of Manpower Supply
VAMAS CoC-VN Viet Nam Association of Manpower Supply Code of Conduct
VGCL Viet Nam General Confederation of Labour
VIJUSAP Viet Nam Association of Judicial Support for the Poor
VND Vietnamese dong
xv
1
Research approach
1.1 Purpose of the study

As increasing numbers of Vietnamese workers travel abroad to find employment,
labour migration is promoted by the Government of Viet Nam as a vehicle for
employment generation and poverty reduction; for potential migrants migration is
viewed as a means of increasing income levels and achieving a higher standard of
living. In support of this policy, the Government of Viet Nam has also set an annual
target under the National Target Programme on Employment and Vocational Training
of sending 80,000—100,000 workers abroad each year from 2012 to 2015. In this
mix, recruitment agencies, brokers and foreign employers seek to maximize the
utility of a growing market for Vietnamese workers. Against this backdrop, the issues
faced by workers during the migration process and especially the processes through
which complaints can be initiated and resolved are often ineffectively addressed.
There are currently over 500,000 Vietnamese workers living abroad. Vietnamese
workers are travelling to an increasingly large number of destination countries, in
South-East and East Asia and beyond. DOLAB recorded over 106,000 migrant
workers moved abroad in 2014. The remittances of Vietnamese people living
abroad contribute over six per cent of Viet Nam’s GDP, totalling more than US$11
billion as of 2013 (World Bank, 2014, p6).
The operating environment underpinning labour migration in Viet Nam is complex
and stakeholders varied. Since 1992, Viet Nam has signed over 20 memoranda of
understanding (MOU) and bilateral agreements to facilitate formal labour
migration arrangements with destination countries and territories. Over the past
20 years both state-owned and private sector licensed recruitment agencies have
become central to the migration process as the primary actors sending workers
abroad. According to DOLAB figures, in 2013 there were over 180 recruitment
agencies licensed to send workers abroad, 138 of which the state owned or had a
partial stake in.3 Recruitment agencies in which the state has at least a partial
interest send more than 88 per cent of all Vietnamese migrant workers abroad
each year. Further, as a result of increasing numbers of both workers independently
negotiating contracts directly with foreign employers, and irregular workers (for
example, those who migrate through irregular channels or become irregular
through overstaying visas), there is also a range of “unofficial” stakeholders,
including unauthorized recruiters and brokers.
Migration is an attractive option for workers pursuing job opportunities and higher
incomes, however, for many the migration experience is difficult, particularly when
workers are not adequately informed of their rights and of the responsibilities of
recruitment agencies and employers. With so many players involved in the
3
Of these 138, 51 were wholly owned by the state, 33 had more than 51 per cent state capital and 45
had less than 51 per cent state capital. In 2015 there were over 200 licensed recruitment agencies. 1
migration process, the scope of difficulties workers may face is broad and issues
can arise from the time a prospective migrant worker first considers moving
overseas until after their return to Viet Nam.
Problems commonly arise for workers where there is a lack of information, or

transparency, on fundamental issues such as the costs of migration, the
recruitment process, a worker’s suitability for employment in a particular
destination or job, or the terms and conditions of employment. This can lead to
workers incurring large debts due to excessive fees charged either by recruitment
agencies or informal sector brokers. There are numerous reports of workers being
underpaid or placed in poor or unsafe working conditions. Further, workers can be
enticed by the relative ease and speed of migrating through irregular channels, as
well as the comparatively low costs involved.
Making a complaint
Migrant workers and authorities alike face issues in managing complaints,
however, to date there has been no assessment of the efficacy of the institutional
framework that supports the complaints process. In light of this, in 2014 the ILO
GMS TRIANGLE initiated a project, with the endorsement of the Viet Nam Project
Advisory Committee, to study existing complaint mechanisms for Vietnamese
migrant workers, in cooperation with the Department of Legal Affairs, MOLISA and
VIJUSAP. The objective of the research was to better understand the operation of
complaint mechanisms in Viet Nam and raise awareness of issues arising during the
complaints process, so as to identify how the framework could be enhanced, made
more responsive to the needs of migrant workers and provide further guidance for
authorities when managing complaints.
VIJUSAP had overall responsibility for conducting the field research, including
developing and conducting the interviews, analysing the results, and preparing the
first draft of the report. MOLISA representatives were also active in the study,
conducting interviews with workers and officials in the provinces and providing
background material to inform the desk review of legislation governing complaint
mechanisms. The ILO GMS TRIANGLE also provided input into the interview
questionnaires and was represented on the interview team.
The study emerged from the basic premise that when issues arise, migrant workers
may be reluctant to voice their concerns. Workers may not realize that their rights
are being violated, fear retribution from their employer, know who to turn to for
assistance, or how to complete a written complaint. Many will be unable to identify
the appropriate authority with whom to file a complaint, or face barriers in
meeting requirements for lodging or producing sufficient evidence to support their
claim. This may be because paperwork has been lost or destroyed, because no
written contract was signed or contracts were never properly executed, or may be
due to discrepancies between contracts signed in Viet Nam and those presented in
the destination country, which are generally not in Vietnamese.
In addition, local authorities face capacity and knowledge-based challenges in

effective complaints management, especially in coordinating with relevant
stakeholders or obtaining complete and timely information from recruitment
agencies. This contributes to the unresponsiveness of the administrative system
and obstructs the full implementation of the legislation as intended. As will be
discussed in Chapter 3, the existing Vietnamese legal framework provides
mechanisms for migrant workers to make complaints, the primary statute
2 governing overseas migration being the Law on Vietnamese Workers Working
Abroad Under Contract. In addition Decree No. 119, which came into effect in
February 2015, was designed to improve the complaint and denunciation
mechanisms for workers, especially overseas migrant workers. The results of this
research indicate that, despite this legal framework, gaps and practical issues
concerning implementation and enforcement of laws remain. This means that
making a complaint can be a frustrating, difficult and often fruitless process.
This situation creates obstacles for migrant workers seeking access to justice, and,
because unscrupulous recruiters are less likely to be held accountable, perpetuates
conditions where unscrupulous recruitment actors can operate, increasing both
the likelihood of workers needing to make complaints and the incidence of
irregular migration. This means that government policies designed to promote
migration and targets for sending workers abroad remain unfulfilled. However, the
research also finds that recent advancements, such as the introduction of Decree
No. 119 and the establishment of the DOLAB complaints database, provide a timely
opportunity to take stock of the effectiveness of the processes and practicalities of
making complaints and can be leveraged to ensure continued improvements.
This research builds on analysis conducted by the ILO regarding the operation of
complaint mechanisms for migrant workers in other jurisdictions in Asia, including
in Thailand and Sri Lanka in 2013, and Cambodia in 2014. It also promotes the
principles articulated in the ASEAN Declaration and recommendations made at the
6th annual AFML in 2013.
1.2 Research methodology

This report is informed by a review of the existing legal framework enabling
migrant workers to lodge complaints, including relevant international standards,
and interviews eliciting the experiences of Vietnamese workers and authorities in
managing complaints.
The study relies primarily on qualitative research methods, making use of the
following data collection tools:
Desk review: A review of relevant Vietnamese legislation and international
labour standards, supplemented by reports from the Department of Labour,
Invalids and Social Affairs (DOLISA) in the target provinces and DOLAB.
Key informant interviews: Interviews with staff from organizations and
institutions assisting workers with the resolution of complaints.
In-depth personal interviews: Interviews with men and women migrant
workers and their families regarding their experiences during the migration
process and while filing complaints. The interview team also reviewed relevant
documentation, including applications of complaint, applications of
denunciation and copies of contracts, to inform the interviews and analysis.
Focus group discussions: Women and men migrant workers and their family
members selected for individual interviews also participated in focus group
discussions.
In advance of the field research, the interview team liaised closely with the
relevant DOLISA in each interview province to coordinate activities and arrange
interviews. Migrant workers approached for interviews were selected based on
DOLISA records of prospective and returned migrant workers who had complained
about their migration experience.
3
The preliminary results of this study were discussed at a validation workshop held
by the Department of Legal Affairs, MOLISA, and VIJUSAP, in July 2014. It was
attended by 34 participants (19 men and 15 women) from Government, the
Vietnam General Confederation of Labour (VGCL) and civil society, including
migrant workers.
1.3 Research sample

From 12 to 27 May 2014, the interviews team conducted 138 key informant and
in-depth personal interviews in Quang Ngai, Ha Tinh and Thanh Hoa provinces
including with provincial, district and communal officials, prospective and returned
migrants, and migrant workers’ relatives.
Figure 1. Map of Viet Nam: Provinces surveyed
Ha Tinh
4
Representatives from provincial agencies interviewed included labour

management officials, judges, public security officers, commune officials, and
representatives from the Viet Nam Women’s Union and commune inspection
boards.
Workers targeted for interviews were workers who had completed their contract
abroad, workers who had returned prematurely, and workers who had
encountered issues prior to their departure and had not been placed in
employment abroad.
Table 1. Interviewees by respondent group
Respondent group Number of interviewees
Officials (total) 87
Provincial officials 27
District officials 36
Commune officials 24
Migrant workers 44
Migrant workers’ family members 7
Total 138
Source: data from field research
1.4 Limitations of the research

Of the 44 workers interviewed, just six were women. This figure is
disproportionately low compared with official statistics which indicate that women
account for approximately one third of all Vietnamese migrant workers. This
restricts the gender analysis possible. The 44 workers interviewed were mostly
from poor communes, many were from ethnic minority groups, and all had been
identified as having had a grievance arise during the migration process, noting this
did not necessarily result in a complaint being lodged. As such, the results
concerning the incidence and nature of complaints are not representative of the
broader migrant worker cohort. It should also be noted that the interviews took
place prior to the introduction of Decree No. 119.
The field research focused on workers returning from Malaysia and Libya,4 some of
whom migrated independently. Workers from poor communes are generally
low-skilled and more likely to work in lower paid and less desirable positions abroad,
noting the associated costs of migration are also lower. Therefore, the results are not
suitable for extrapolation for discussion on broader trends, such as in which
countries complaints are most likely to arise, nor is the analysis intended to assess
the overall impact of migration for low-skilled as workers compared with
higher-skilled workers. The involvement of government officials in the field research
may also have impacted on the frankness with which interviewees – including
government officials – were willing to highlight perceived deficiencies in the
complaint management process, or the overarching institutional framework.
Nonetheless, the detailed nature of the interviews and the consistency of the
experiences reported means that well-supported conclusions and observations on
the complaint making process can be made.
The overview of legislation is not designed to provide a complete, in-depth
assessment of all laws pertaining to migrant workers in Viet Nam, rather, it is
intended to highlight the key provisions currently governing complaint mechanisms
for migrant workers.
4
Following the outbreak of civil unrest many Vietnamese workers left Libya or were assisted to 5
repatriate to Viet Nam through the Overseas Employment Support Fund, managed by MOLISA.
2
International standards and regional
initiatives on complaint mechanisms
In considering the operation of complaint mechanisms within Viet Nam and

assessing areas for improvement, it is important to refer to the broader
international context, in particular relevant international standards and key
regional initiatives. There are a range of such standards and initiatives that
countries can use to develop and to implement complaint mechanisms for migrant
workers. This includes both binding standards and non-binding guidance material
or recommendations.
2.1 International standards

2.1.1 Conventions and Recommendations
Migrant workers derive protections from international instruments, including the
core ILO Conventions.5 Several ILO and UN Conventions are specifically relevant to
migrant workers, particularly the Migration for Employment Convention, 1949 (No.
97), the Migrant Workers Convention, 1975 (No. 143), the Private Employment
Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181), the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011
(No. 189), and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All
Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, 1990 (ICMW). There is a low
ratification rate for Conventions relevant to migrant workers across the ASEAN
region (see Table 2 below).
5
The core ILO Conventions are the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.87), the Right to Organise
and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.98), the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No.
100), the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), the Discrimination (Employment
and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No.138) and the
Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182).
6
Table 2. Ratification of selected international instruments in the ASEAN region

Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Lao PDR Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Viet Nam
C.29 1969 1950 1964 1957 1955 2005 1965 1969 2007
C.87 1999 1998 1955 1953
C.97 *1964 2009
C.98 1999 1957 1961 1953 1965
C.100 1999 1958 2008 1997 1953 2002 1999 1997
C.105 1999 1999 ***1958 1960 ***1965 1969
C.111 1999 1999 2008 1960 1997
C.138 2011 1999 1999 2005 1997 1998 2005 2004 2003
C.143 2006
C.181
C.182 2008 2006 2000 2005 2000 2013 2000 2001 2001 2000
C.189 2012
ICMW **2004 2012 1995
*Ratification by Sabah. **Signed. ***Denounced.

Source: ILO.
Convention No. 181 provides standards for the regulation of private employment
agencies to ensure fair practices. Article 10 of Convention No. 181 establishes the
basis for enacting recruitment complaint mechanisms, providing that:
The competent authority shall ensure that adequate machinery and procedures,
involving as appropriate the most representative employers and workers
organizations, exist for the investigation, alleged abuses and fraudulent practices
concerning the activities of private employment agencies.
(ILO, 1997a)
The non-binding Private Employment Agencies Recommendation, 1997 (No. 188)

supplements the provisions of Convention No. 181.
Practical guidance regarding the implementation and application of Convention
No.181 and Recommendation No. 188 are found in the ILO’s 2007 Guide to private
employment agencies: Regulation, monitoring and enforcement, which also notes
that migrant workers should be informed of possible complaint procedures.
While its application is not limited to migrant workers, Convention No. 189 is also a
relevant standard given the growing number of migrant workers who undertake
domestic work abroad. Pertinent to the establishment of complaint mechanisms,
Article 17 of Convention No. 189 provides that:
1. Each Member shall establish effective and accessible complaint mechanisms
and means of ensuring compliance with national laws and regulations for the
protection of domestic workers.
2. Each Member shall develop and implement measures for labour inspection,
enforcement and penalties with due regard for the special characteristics of domestic
work, in accordance with national laws and regulations.
(ILO, 2011a)
Convention No. 189’s accompanying Recommendation, the Domestic Workers

Recommendation, 2011 (No. 201) provides further guidance on the
implementation of complaint mechanisms under Article 7(a), namely that
Members should consider “establishing accessible complaint mechanisms for
domestic workers to report cases of abuse, harassment and violence” (ILO, 2011b).
7
2.1.2 Multilateral framework on labour migration

The ILO’s non-binding Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration, provides a
comprehensive set of rights-based guidelines and principles developed through
tripartite global consensus. Principle 10 of the Framework concerns the effective
application and enforcement of national laws and regulations to protect migrant
workers. The guidelines recommend that governments facilitate this by:
10.5. providing for effective remedies to all migrant workers for violation of their
rights, and creating effective and accessible channels for all migrant workers to lodge
complaints and seek remedy without discrimination, intimidation or retaliation;
10.6. providing for remedies from any or all persons and entities involved in the
recruitment and employment of migrant workers for violation of their rights;
10.7. providing effective sanctions and penalties for all those responsible for
violating migrant workers’ rights;
10.8. providing information to migrant workers on their rights and assisting them
with defending their rights;
10.9. providing information to employers’ and workers’ organizations concerning
the rights of migrant workers;
10.10. providing interpretation and translation services for migrant workers during
administrative and legal proceedings, if necessary;
10.11. offering legal services, in accordance with national law and practice, to
migrant workers involved in legal proceedings related to employment and migration.
(ILO, 2006, p. 20)
Principle 11 of the Framework concerns measures designed to prevent abusive

practices towards migrant workers. In respect to complaint mechanisms the
guidelines recommend:
11.3. implementing effective and accessible remedies for workers whose rights
have been violated, regardless of their migration status, including remedies for breach
of employment contracts, such as financial compensation;
11.4. imposing sanctions and penalties against individuals and entities responsible
for abusive practices against migrant workers;
11.5. adopting measures to encourage migrant workers and trafficking victims to
denounce abuse, exploitation and violation of their rights, taking account of the
special circumstances of women and children and to this effect establishing
mechanisms for migrant workers to lodge complaints and seek remedies without
intimidation or retaliation.
(ILO, 2006, p. 21-22)
2.2 ASEAN initiatives

Convened by the ASEAN Committee on the Implementation of the ASEAN
Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers, the
ASEAN Forum on Migrant Labour (AFML) is a forum for the discussion and
exchange of best practices and ideas between governments, workers’ and
employers’ organizations and civil society stakeholders on key issues facing migrant
workers in South-East Asia.
The AFML develops recommendations to advance the implementation of the

ASEAN Declaration. Obligations 13 and 14 of the ASEAN Declaration are particularly
relevant to Viet Nam.
8
Obligation 13 requires Members to “[s]et up policies and procedures to facilitate

aspects of migration of workers, including recruitment, preparation for
deployment overseas and protection of the migrant workers when abroad as well
as repatriation and reintegration to the countries of origin”(ASEAN, 2007).
Obligation 14 highlights the need to eliminate recruitment malpractices which, by

implication, requires that there be effective mechanisms to uncover them.
Obligation 14 provides that Member states should “[e]stablish and promote legal
practices to regulate recruitment of migrant workers and adopt mechanisms to
eliminate recruitment malpractices through legal and valid contracts, regulation
and accreditation of recruitment agencies and employers, and blacklisting of
negligent/unlawful agencies”(ASEAN, 2007).
The AFML is held annually, and each year focuses on a particular migration-related
theme. At the 6th AFML held in Brunei Darussalam in 2013, access to complaint
mechanisms for migrant workers in countries of origin and destination was a key
area of discussion. In order to protect the rights of migrant workers in line with
international human rights and labour standards, the AFML made the following
recommendations for implementation in ASEAN Member States:
Table 3. Recommendations on complaint mechanisms from the 6th AFML

Recommendation Text of recommendation
Number
9 Develop and strengthen the existing complaint mechanisms
for migrant workers in ASEAN Member States that are
transparent, accessible and simplified during recruitment,
employment and in case of termination and deportation. In
this regard, it is important to ensure that the integrity of
complaints be carefully examined.
10 Ensure that complaint mechanisms are gender-sensitive and
responsive to the vulnerability of migrant workers.
11 Support the development of “one-stop” service centres for
migrant workers that among other things facilitate access to
complaint mechanisms and assistance, including
interpretation and free legal counselling/referral, in
collaboration with all stakeholders including migrant
communities, workers’ and employers’ organizations, and
CSOs to ensure that the services are accessible to migrant
workers.
12 Ensure that information on the availability of such service
centres and complaint mechanisms is disseminated to
migrant workers and their families through appropriate
communication channels, such as, electronic and print
media, migrant workers resource centres, outreach
programmes, pre-departure trainings, pre-employment
orientation seminars and diplomatic missions.
13 Ensure and strengthen the role of labour attachés,
embassies and consular officials to include support services
on availing of complaint mechanisms for migrant workers.
14 Dispute resolutions, mediation, and other alternative
dispute settlement mechanisms should be fully explored
before administrative or judicial litigation processes.
9
Recommendation Text of recommendation

Number
15 Ensure timely notification and communication between
the countries of destination and origin on judicial cases of
migrant workers and extend cooperation to provide access
to migrant workers to file cases for violation of rights in the
country that the violation took place.
16 Promote inter-country trade unions collaboration to
support migrant workers in cases of complaints.
17 Ensure, where possible, the joint accountability of
employers and recruitment agencies in case of migrant
workers’ complaints when the recruitment agencies are
responsible for recruiting and placing workers abroad.
18 Ensure that adequate arrangements in case of return and
repatriation to be shouldered by employers.
19 Promote sharing of experiences and information among
ASEAN Member States in implementing their respective
complaint mechanisms through stock taking of the
20 processes in handling grievances of migrant workers.
Consider developing regional guidelines and tools on the
establishment of key aspects and standards of complaint
mechanisms for migrant workers.
Source: ASEAN, 2013.
The implementation of recommendations from previous forums was discussed at

the 7th AFML, held in Myanmar from 20 to 21 November 2014.
10
3
Legal framework for migrant worker complaints in Viet Nam
There are a range of Vietnamese laws governing all phases of the labour migration
process, from recruitment and deployment to repatriation. This includes a number
of laws that have been revised in recent years and new laws. The quantum and
diversity of laws creates a complex operating environment which can be difficult
for many migrant workers to navigate. This report focuses on the key legislative
provisions currently in effect in Viet Nam that govern the rights of migrant workers
to make complaints.
3.1 Constitution of Viet Nam
Under article 30 of the Constitution of Viet Nam (Revised 2013), citizens have the
right to lodge complaints or denunciations about illegal acts:
1. Everyone has the right to lodge complaints or denunciations about illegal acts
of agencies, organisations or individuals with competent agencies, organisations or
persons.
2. Competent agencies, organisations or persons shall receive and resolve
complaints and denunciations. Those suffering damages have the right to material and
mental compensation and restoration of honour in accordance with law.
3. Taking revenge on complainants or denunciators, or abusing the right to
complaint and denunciation to slander or falsely accuse others, is prohibited.
(Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, 2013)
3.2 Law on Vietnamese Workers Working Abroad Under Contract

Underpinned by the Constitution, the Law on Vietnamese Workers Working
Abroad Under Contract is the primary law governing the deployment and
management of Vietnamese migrant workers. The Law regulates a range of issues
relating to migrant workers including the licensing of agencies permitted to send
workers abroad, and the rights and obligations of workers and recruitment
agencies.
It also provides migrant workers with the right to make a complaint under certain
circumstances, and obligates authorities to manage complaints. Prior to the
enactment of this law, there were no complaint provisions specific to migrant
workers.
3.2.1 Scope of the law

Under Article 2, the Law applies to:
• enterprises and state-owned non-profit organizations sending workers abroad
under contract
11
• workers working abroad in accordance with the law

• guarantors for workers working abroad under contract
• organizations and individuals involved in the overseas contractual
employment of workers.
Article 6 sets out the means by which workers may be sent abroad, namely:
• contracts signed with enterprises providing overseas employment services
• state-owned non-profit organizations permitted to send workers abroad
• arrangements with enterprises with overseas contracts
• internships
• under an individual contract signed with a foreign employer.
Article 9(4) requires enterprises providing overseas employment services to pay a

deposit as a pre-condition of licensing, and Article 22 provides that deposits may
be used to address issues arising from the failure of enterprises to fulfil their
obligations in sending workers abroad.
The Law outlines a number of obligations for recruitment enterprises in relation to
recruitment services including:
• the obligation to settle disputes related to workers (Article 27(2)(f))
• the obligation to report and coordinate with Vietnamese diplomatic missions
or consulates in managing and protecting the lawful rights and interests of
workers in foreign countries (Article 27(2)(g))
• the obligation to compensate workers for damage caused to them (Article
27(2)(h)).
State-owned non-profit organizations have an explicit obligation under Article

41(2)(e) to report to, and coordinate with, Vietnamese diplomatic missions and
consulates in managing workers, protecting their lawful rights and interests, and
resolving their employment issues. Where a state-owned non-profit organization
breaches a contract with a worker, the worker may also receive compensation
(Article 49(3)).
3.2.2 The ability of workers to make complaints

Article 44(6) enables workers to lodge complaints or denunciations or initiate
lawsuits against illegal acts in the sending of workers abroad. Article 44(6) does not
limit the parties against whom a complaint may be made. A comparable right is not
explicitly provided for workers on individual contracts but these workers do have
the right to the protection of their legal rights and interests by the relevant
Vietnamese diplomatic mission in the country of destination (Article 53(1)(b)).
Article 69(8) provides that state management of overseas workers, which is

MOLISA’s responsibility in accordance with Article 70, includes inspecting,
supervising and handling violations of the law; and settling disputes, complaints
and denunciations.
Chapter VII deals with the settlement of disputes and handling of violations. In
particular, it provides that:
• Disputes between workers and enterprises or state-owned non-profit
organizations sending workers abroad shall be settled on the basis of contracts
between the parties and provisions of Vietnamese Law (Article 73(1)).
• Disputes between workers and foreign employers shall be settled on the basis
of agreements signed between the parties and the legal provisions of receiving
countries, relevant treaties or international agreements (Article 73(2)).
12
Under Article 74, a person who commits a violation under the law shall be
disciplined, administratively sanctioned or may be required to pay compensation.
Article 75 also sets out the range of sanctions that may apply to enterprises,
state-owned non-profit organizations, organizations or individuals involved in the
sending of workers abroad, including a caution, fine, compensation or revocation
of a licence. Competence to impose sanctions on organisations and individuals for
violations of the Law sits with a number of authorities including the Chairpersons
of Provincial People’s Committee, the Chief inspector of MOLISA, Chief inspectors
of DOLISA, and the Director-General of DOLAB (Article 76).
3.3 Decree No. 119
The most recent legal instrument to be approved concerning complaint

mechanisms for migrant workers is Decree No. 119, which came into force on 1
February 2015. The Decree is intended to regulate the handling of complaints and
denunciations on a range of issues, including the dispatch of Vietnamese workers
for overseas employment by recruitment agencies.
Notably, the Decree explicitly does not apply to state-owned enterprises,
non-profit state-owned entities (noting complaints concerning state-owned
enterprises may be considered in accordance with the Law on Complaints, 2011
No. 02/2011-QH13—see below) or workers employed under individual
employment contracts (Article 2(2)(a)). Prior to 1 July 2015, a state-owned
enterprise was defined under article 4(22) of the Law on Enterprises No.
60-2005-QH11 as an enterprise in which the state owns over 50 per cent of the
charter capital. A state-owned enterprise is now defined as an enterprise in which
the state owns 100 per cent charter capital under the new Law on Enterprises No.
68/2014/QH13. Based on 2013 figures, it is estimated that Decree No. 119 now
applies to over 70 per cent of licensed recruitment agencies.
Under the Decree a complaint involves a request, supported by evidence, for the
review of decisions or acts concerning workers’ dispatch overseas (Article 3(3)).
Persons who may make a complaint include workers on overseas employment
under contract, or organizations or individuals relevant to the dispatch of those
workers (Article 3(7)). Complaints may be made against organizations and
individuals dispatching workers overseas (Article 3(10)).
There is a broad power to make denunciations under the Decree. A denunciation
occurs where a citizen alleges there has been a violation in respect of the dispatch
of workers for overseas employment that has caused, or threatened to cause,
damages to the interests of the State or the legitimate rights and interests of
citizens, agencies or organizations (Article 3(4)). Denunciations may be made by
any citizen against organizations and individuals dispatching workers for
employment abroad (Article 3(14)).
A complainant may make a complaint via an application (in accordance with Article
6), upon having evidence of a violation (Article 5(1)). Article 17(1) of the Decree
provides that the heads of organizations dispatching workers for overseas
employment under contract (that is, recruitment agencies) have the right to handle
complaints regarding their decisions or acts (“first-time complaints”). If
complainants do not agree with the decision made in respect to a first-time
complaint to a recruitment agency, or if time limits for responding to a first-time
complaint have elapsed, the Director-General, DOLAB may then deal with the
matter under Article 17(2) (“second-time complaints”).
13
3.3.1 Timing for making a complaint

Initial complaints must be made within 180 days of the complainant becoming
aware of the act or decision that constituted the alleged breach (Article 7(1)).
Second-time complaints must be made within 30 days of a complainant receiving
the outcome of a first-time complaint, or within 30 days after the time limit for a
complainant to receive a response to a first-time complaint has elapsed (Article
7(2)). Extenuating circumstances for failing to make a complaint within the time
limits are provided for under Article 7(3).
3.3.2 Rights and duties

The complainant is provided with certain rights under the Decree including the
right to make a complaint themselves or to authorize others to make a complaint
(Article 10(1)(a)). Complainants also have the right to request that individuals,
agencies and organizations provide them with material in their possession (with
the exception of confidential State material) relevant to a complaint (Article
10(1)(d)). Further, complainants have an automatic right to take a matter to court
upon having evidence that decisions of organizations and individuals dispatching
workers for overseas employment under contract are illegal. Alternatively, a
complaint may be brought to court where a complainant does not agree with
either a decision made in respect of a first-time complaint or a decision made in
respect of a second-time complaint (Article 10(2)), or relevant time limits for
handling these complaints have not been met.
The rights and duties of those hearing first-time and second-time complaints are
set out in Article 12 and Article 13, respectively. There are also procedural rules
around the timing and manner in which a complaint is to be handled (part 4
(first-time complaints) and part 5 (second-time complaints)). Under Article 18(3),
first-time complainants, and any organization that has forwarded a first-time
complaint on the complainant’s behalf, must receive an acknowledgement of their
complaint within seven days of it being received, and DOLAB must also be advised.
Article 19(1) provides that first-time complaints must be dealt with within 30
working days of formal acknowledgment of the complaint or, for complicated
cases, within 45 days. Where the complaint requires accessing remote localities,
the time limit for most cases is 45 days or, for complicated cases, 60 days.
DOLAB must also acknowledge second-time complaints within seven days of
receipt (Article 26). Complaints must be dealt with within 45 days from the date of
acknowledgement, or 60 days for complicated cases (Article 27(1)). Where
investigation of a complaint requires accessing a remote locality, complaints must
be dealt with within 60 days following the date of acknowledgement, or 90 days for
complicated cases.
3.4 Law on Complaints 2011, No. 02/2011-QH13 (Law on Complaints)
The Law on Complaints provides for citizens, agencies, organizations or
government officials to request reconsideration of acts or decisions of state
administrative agencies, or competent persons in state administrative agencies, on
the basis that those decisions or acts are illegal and violate legal interests and rights
(Article 2). A lawyer or legal aid officer may also be authorized to act on behalf of a
complainant. A complaint may be lodged with the person issuing the
administrative decision in question (“first-time complaints”) and later with the
body managing the person who has performed the administrative act
(“second-time complaints”) (Article 7).
14
The Law sets out process and procedures for making complaints, which may
include meetings between the complainant and person settling the complaint.
Complaints must be filed within 90 days of receiving the administrative decision or
becoming aware of the administrative act (Article 9).
3.5 Decree on Detailing and Guiding the Implementation of Numbers of

Articles of the Law on Vietnamese Workers Working Abroad Under
Contract (No. 126/2007/ND-CP) (Decree No. 126)
Decree No. 126 reiterates the responsibilities of government agencies in relation to
the settling of complaints and denunciations. In particular, it provides that the
deposit for licensed enterprises is 1 billion Vietnamese dong (VND)(US$46,850)
(Article 5), which can be used to resolve issues arising from a failure on the part of
the recruitment agency to perform its obligations. It also provides that MOLISA is
responsible for settling complaints and denunciations and is responsible for
inspecting, examining and handling administrative violations of organizations and
individuals (Article 8(9)).
Under Article 14(2)(d), People’s Committees also have responsibility for settling
complaints and denunciations related to the sending of workers abroad. The
Ministry of Public Security has responsibility for prosecuting and investigating
violations regarding law and regulations on sending workers abroad (Article 10).
3.6 Decree No. 95
Decree No. 95 deals with the violations, penalties, fines and remedial measures
available for a range of labour issues, including overseas labour supply (Article 1).
It was informed by the earlier Decree on Sanctioning of Administrative Violations in
the Sending of Vietnamese Workers Abroad for Employment (No.
144/2007/NĐ-CP), which it superseded. Specific breaches in respect to overseas
labour supply are dealt with under chapter 4 of the Decree. These include failing to
inform workers of contract conditions (Article 31(1)(a)), inconsistencies between
contracts to send workers abroad, and contracts of supply with overseas employers
(Article 31(2)(d)), and failing to refund service charges paid by workers who are not
sent abroad (Article 33(3)(a)).
Chapter 5 allows certain authorities to impose penalties for administrative
violations, including the Presidents of People’s Committees at the commune,
district or provincial level (Article 36), labour inspectors (Article 37), the Director of
the Overseas Manpower Authority (Article 38), and diplomatic missions and
consular offices (Article 39). A complaint against a decision made under Decree No.
95 may be considered under the Law on Complaints.
3.7 Other laws

While not specifically dealing with migrant workers, there are a number of laws
that provide certain authorities with the power to deal with general complaints
from citizens, or to govern sanctions associated with breaches of legislation. These
include:
• The Law on Denunciations 2011 (No. 03/2011/QH13): Under this Law, citizens
may denounce illegal acts committed by cadres, civil servants or public
employees when performing their public duties, or by agencies, organizations
and individuals with respect to state management issues. Denunciations may
be settled by superiors within the agency in question, or a superior agency
(Article 12).
15
• The Law on Organization of the People’s Council and the People’s Committee
1994: This Law includes the duty of the People’s Council and President of the
People’s Committee to receive and handle complaints and denunciations
(Article 23 and Article 52(1)(d), respectively).
• The Penal Code 1999 (No. 15/1999/QH10): This Law imposes penalties for
abuse of position or power to obstruct the lodging or settlement of complaints
or denunciations. It also imposes penalties for refusals to abide by the
decisions of agencies in relation to complaints or denunciations, or for taking
revenge on those who submit a complaint or denunciation (Article 132).
• The Law on Handling Administrative Violations 2012 (No. 15/2012/QH13):
This Law provides individuals and organizations with the ability to lodge
complaints or denunciations or initiate lawsuits regarding the handling of
administrative violations (Article 15). The Law provides for all levels of the
People’s Committee to handle complaints and denunciations (Article 17(5)),
and that ministers, heads of ministerial-level agencies, and chairpersons of
People’s Committees at all levels shall promptly settle complaints and
denunciations regarding the handling of administrative violations under their
management (Article 18(2)(c)).
• The Law on the Prevention and Combat of Human Trafficking 2011 (No.
66/2011/QH12): Noting the vulnerability of migrant workers to human
trafficking, this Law includes measures designed to increase protections for
migrant workers including requiring that organizations sending workers
abroad must sign contracts with, and register, foreign workers (Article 15).
Chapter III outlines means of reporting and denouncing instances of human
trafficking, as well as the handling of violations.
• The Law on Inspection 2010 (No. 56/2010/QH12): This Law provides that
state agencies shall assist competent state agencies in settling complaints and
denunciations (Article 5). The Government Inspectorate is specifically tasked
with the settlement of complaints and denunciations (Article 15), as is the
Ministerial Inspectorate (Article 18). The Provincial Inspectorate (Article 21),
provincial-level department inspectorates (Article 24), and District
Inspectorates (Article 27), are also given powers to settle complaints and
denunciations.
3.8 Viet Nam Association of Manpower Supply (VAMAS) Code of Conduct

(CoC-VN)
While non-binding, the VAMAS CoC-VN is relevant to the regulation of recruitment
agencies. The voluntary code was adopted in 2010 and applies to those
Vietnamese enterprises sending workers abroad who have agreed to be assessed
in accordance with the Code. The CoC-VN outlines the fundamental principles with
which enterprises recruiting workers for overseas employment should comply and
is based on Vietnamese laws, ILO Conventions and Recommendations, and other
relevant international instruments.
The CoC-VN covers 12 key areas ranging from recruitment and training, to
protection of workers overseas. In terms of dispute settlement, article 10 provides
that:
1. All disputes between workers and the enterprise must be settled in

accordance with the contract signed by concerned parties and Vietnamese laws.
2. All disputes between workers and employers overseas must be settled on

16
the basis of [the] agreement signed by related parties, by the laws in [the] receiving
country and international treaties [to] which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a
member State, by international agreements…signed with foreign parties.
3. The dispute settlement procedures must ensure [that] Vietnamese

workers overseas have support from the enterprise, officers from the
Vietnamese embassy, interpreters as well as legal representatives who speak
Vietnamese.
(VAMAS, 2010)
Figure 2. Ranking of recruitment agencies in Viet Nam (2014)
Source: Monitoring results from VAMAS CoC-VN, 2014.
VAMAS and VGCL are conducting ongoing assessments of recruitment agencies’

compliance with the CoC-VN. In the first two years of its operation, 47 recruitment
agencies were assessed and this number is expected to rise to 67 in the third year.
Results of the assessment inform ratings given to recruitment agencies; excellent
(A1 and A2), good (B1 and B2), satisfactory (C1 and C2) and not satisfactory (D1 and
D2). In 2014, more than half of the rated agencies belonged to group A2, with a
quarter achieving top tier A1 status and nearly one fifth receiving B1 status. 6
3.9 Managing a complaint in practice: the official figures
The DOLAB Inspectorate is responsible for managing complaints made prior to a
worker’s move abroad and after their return. Complaints made to DOLAB whilst a
worker is abroad are referred to the relevant country desk within DOLAB. To date,
details of complaints directed to country desks have not been collated although, as
is discussed below, this is likely to change with the introduction of the DOLAB
complaints database.
Several Labour Management Sections run by MOLISA officials have been established
abroad to provide support to migrant workers, and some recruitment agencies also
have representatives in major destination countries. In destination countries serious
or urgent complaints are, in practice, handled by Vietnamese diplomatic missions
or, where there have been established, Labour Management Sections within these
6
The CoC-VN is transitioning from the existing rating system to a new “six star” rating system but
will retain the current assessment process.
17
missions. Diplomatic missions most commonly observe issues arising for

Vietnamese workers pertaining to working hours, underpayment or maltreatment.
Currently, there are Labour Management Sections in Malaysia, Taiwan (China), the
Republic of Korea, Japan, the Czech Republic, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates.
From 2007 to 2014 the DOLAB Inspectorate received a total of 2,055 complaints in
relation to migration issues, with 105 complaints received in 2012, 100 complaints
in 2013 and 115 complaints in 2014. Complaints peaked in 2009 (521), which may
be explained by the flow on effects of the global financial crisis. Very low numbers
of complaints were received in the period 2012—14 compared to other years, with
the fewest complaints received in 2013.
In 2011, the DOLAB inspectorate considered the number of complaints received
from 2007—11 by destination (see Table 4 below), as well as issues commonly
raised in complaints.
Table 4. Migrant worker complaints received by DOLAB 2007-11, by destination
Destination 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
(country)
Taiwan (China) 68 41 97 103 60 369
Malaysia 96 110 150 75 86 517
Republic of Korea 50 31 40 12 19 152
Middle East 6 92 47 97 98 340
Russia, Czech Republic 10 13 149 20 25 217
Other destinations (Australia, 46 44 38 8 4 140
Canada, Singapore, Italy, Maldives,
France, Cyprus, Macau (China))
Total (year) 276 331 521 315 292
Source:DOLAB.
Data from DOLAB indicates that the most common issue raised by workers from
2007 to 2011 was difficulty in dealing with recruitment agencies to have deposits
refunded (“contract liquidation”) when workers were required to return to Viet Nam
prematurely, due to no fault of their own (50 per cent). Other issues raised included
contract substitution (20 per cent); recruitment agencies collecting higher fees than
prescribed by the Government (15 per cent); and failure on the part of recruitment
agencies to secure visas for workers, or otherwise to faciliate their employment
abroad after collecting service fees (see Table 5 below). While numbers of
complaints have varied from year to year across the destinations, complaints
regarding migration to Malaysia and the Middle East have been consistently high,
with complaints related to the Middle East rising steadily in the period 2007-11.
Migration to Malaysia generated the highest number of complaints over this period,
148 more than migration to Taiwan (China), which had the second-highest number
of complaints. This is despite a significant difference in the number of workers who
travel to these destinations. Based on current figures, more than ten times the
number of Vietnamese workers travel to Taiwan (China) compared to Malaysia.
Malaysia was also a major destination for workers interviewed during the field
research (see Chapter 4), further underscoring that workers migrating to Malaysia,
the majority of whom are low-skilled and low-educated, may face a higher
likelihood of encountering problems.
18
Table 5. Migrant worker complaints received by DOLAB 2007-11, by issue

Issue Percentage of complaints
Contract liquidation 50
Contract substitution 20
Higher recruitment fees than prescribed 15
Failure to send workers abroad, six months after fees collected 5
Inadequate support from recruitment agency for insurance claim following accident or death 3
Fees collected by unlicensed agencies/brokers 3
Maltreatment by employers abroad 2
Witthholding of salaries/passport/identity papers by employer, or employer failure to extend 2
visas on time
Total 100
Source:DOLAB.
Compared with other countries of origin, the number of complaints recorded by the
DOLAB Inspectorate is extremely low. In 2009, the Philippines recorded over 37,056
migrant worker complaints; from 2007 to 2010 Sri Lanka recorded 42,482 migrant
worker complaints; and from 2008 to 2011 Indonesia recorded 194,967 migrant
worker complaints (Bhula-or, forthcoming, p.52). While the official number of
workers migrating annually from each of these countries is significantly higher than
from Viet Nam, this alone does not explain the disparity. It is clear that the number
of complaints recorded by each of the aforementioned countries of origin vastly
outnumbers those recorded in Viet Nam, which in turn suggests a high rate of
underreporting in Viet Nam.
There is also a more even spread of issues raised by migrant workers from other
countries of origin compared with those identified by DOLAB (see Table 6).
Table 6. Migrant worker complaints received by selected countries of origin
Philippines (2009) Indonesia (2008-11) Sri Lanka (2007-10)
Contract violation (24%) Non-payment of agreed wages Non-payment of agreed wages
(22%) (19%)
Personal problems (24%) Contract loss (20%) Contract loss (14%)
Delayed/non-payment of Employment different to contract Harassment (physical and sexual)
wages (18%) (11%) (12%)
Maltreatment/mistreatment Workers wished to return home Problems at home (11%)
(14%) (10%)
Poor working/living Death in country of desination Illness (10%)
conditions (8%) (6%)
Immigration/document Violence by employers (5%) Breach of contract (9%)
problems (7%)
Other (3.9%) Other (27%) Other (24%)
Source: Bhula-Or, forthcoming
Observations from DOLAB are that deceptive practices of unlicensed brokers have
increased, and workers may be easily deceived when faced with a lack of alternative
employment opportunities. This in turn increases difficulties associated with
investigation and prosecution as authorities work to establish the legal status of a
particular individual or organization. With a staff of four, the DOLAB Inspectorate
has limited resources to deal with complaints. DOLAB organizes 20—30 scheduled
inspections of recruitment agencies annually in accordance with the authorization
of the relevant DOLAB Deputy Director-General. Scheduled inspections may be
undertaken where a recruitment agency has a high number of workers, has had a
19
high number of complaints made against it (though there is no specific number of

complaints that triggers an inspection), or is entering a new labour market. DOLAB
also conducts 5—10 monitoring visits each year, under the guidance of the DOLAB
Director-General, where abnormalities are detected, such as a sudden increase in
the number of workers being sent abroad or where a recruitment agency has a large
number of branches.
Table 7. Sanctions issued by DOLAB against licenced recruitment agencies, 2010-14

Sanction type Number
Warning 8
Fine 60
Additional penalty 10
Total 78
Source: DOLAB.
Sanctions are not necessarily imposed in response to a complaint from a worker. For
example, a sanction may be imposed where an inspection reveals that an enterprise
has recruited and deployed workers to destination countries not permitted under
their licensing arrangements.
In 2014, with the support of UN Women, DOLAB piloted a database to record the
number of migrant worker complaints and is in the process of transferring historical
records on complaints into the database. The database will be capable of recording
information such as the number of complaints, destination countries where issues
arise, nature of complaints, how long since a complaint has been submitted and the
resolution of a complaint. It will also enable DOLAB to capture the number of
complaints that are received by its different divisions. The establishment of this
database represents a significant step forward in respect of the management of
complaints and also provides a timely opportunity to more closely monitor the
progress of complaints, including time taken to resolve complaints and their
outcome.
3.10 Migrant resource centres (MRCs)

With the support of the ILO GMS TRIANGLE project, since November 2011 MOLISA
has coordinated with DOLISAs in five provinces (Thanh Hoa, Quang Ngai, Bac Ninh,
Phu Tho and Ha Tinh) to establish five MRCs within local Employment Service
Centres (ESCs). The functions of existing MRCs have been rolled out to all ESCs in the
63 provinces of Viet Nam in 2015.
MRCs can be key in disseminating information to prospective migrant workers and
are places where migrant workers can access counselling services, and obtain legal
and other assistance in progressing complaints with authorities. Since 2011,
DOLISAs in the five target provinces have estimated that the amount owing to
workers for migration related grievances has exceeded US$212,000 (VND4.6
billion). Between June 2013 and June 2014, DOLISAs in the five target provinces
managed 40 complaint cases concerning 95 people, including those referred by
MRCs, in which compensation paid totalled approximately VND250 million
(US$12,429 at exchange rate when compensation was paid). This outcome affirms
the positive role local officials can have in supporting workers in progressing
complaints and highlights potential for MRC expertise in this area to be further
developed, having regard to recent legislative developments.
20
3.11 Observations
Domestic legislation in Viet Nam provides a number of mechanisms for workers to
make complaints regarding issues that arise during the migration process.
However, bridging the gap between legislative intention and the actual operation
of complaint mechanisms is critical. Considering the accessibility of mechanisms to
migrant workers seeking to make a complaint, and their likely procedural
effectiveness, is necessary.
Decree No. 119 should be viewed as a significant step forward in the regulation of
migrant worker complaints. However, despite this progress it is important to note
that not all migrant workers are eligible to make a complaint under this law, such as
those who are recruited by state-owned enterprises or irregular migrants. As
outlined in Chapter 1, DOLAB figures indicate that the current definition of
“state-owned enterprise” would exclude approximately 50 recruitment agencies.
While the Law on Vietnamese Workers Working Abroad Under Contract provides
workers recruited by state-owned enterprises with recourse to progress a
complaint, for example under the Law on Complaints, there is a question as to
whether arrangements should be aligned for all migrant workers to provide greater
certainty. This could not only create additional clarity for workers and authorities
but also allow for the consolidation of expertise on labour migration with
Government, and the further development of specialist knowledge on inspection
and enforcement issues.
Decree No. 119 also does not apply to the growing number of workers who are
signing individual contracts with foreign employers, including with the assistance
of unregulated brokers. While receiving countries may have laws that apply to the
employment relationship between an independent worker and their employer,
there is limited information for Vietnamese independent workers as to who they
should contact if a problem arises, including if they face issues with a Vietnamese
broker. In addition, workers who migrate outside legal channels, who are
potentially most vulnerable to exploitation, have no formal recourse under
Vietnamese labour migration law, noting the possibility of a police investigation in
certain circumstances.
Where a worker does decide to make a complaint, there remains potential
ambiguity regarding how the complaint process is managed. There is little clarity as
to what evidence is required to support a claim, including what happens when
there is limited, or no, documentation, and what criteria will be applied in
assessing a complaint. Adding to the intricacies of the system is the sheer number
of laws governing complaints, the interaction between these laws and the
overlapping responsibilities of different authorities. Further, while workers have a
legal right to the protection of the diplomatic missions abroad, which is accessed in
serious and urgent cases, greater clarity regarding the division of responsibilities
between diplomatic mission, especially Labour Management Sections labour
management units, and recruitment agencies and officials in Viet Nam would be
helpful. Clear guidance for authorities on the process for managing complaints may
enhance their ability to explain the operation of relevant laws to migrant workers,
apply the law in practice and expedite and streamline processes. This is particularly
important given that Decree No. 119 provides no formal role for local authorities in
either considering, or assisting with complaints (noting complainants may
authorize others to make a complaint on their behalf). As is further considered in
Chapter 4, local authorities are often a key contact point for workers or their
families looking to lodge a complaint.
21
Regarding first-time and second-time complaints, the new legislated right for
recruitment agencies to hear a first-time complaint may create new challenges for
workers, officials and recruitment agencies themselves. For a worker intending to
lodge a complaint, initially seeking a resolution through direct contact with a
recruitment agency or employer may often be prudent and mediation should be
encouraged, particularly noting potential benefits such as expediting a resolution
and reducing the administrative burden on government agencies. However,
requiring complaints to be directed to a recruitment agency as part of the formal,
legislatively mandated complaints process is likely to create practical issues,
including potentially acting as a deterrent for workers making a formal complaint.
Under the new law, a worker’s recruitment agency may be both the party against
whom a complaint is being made, and the arbitrator. For such an internal review
process to operate effectively recruitment agencies will need to have transparent
procedures to support their new legislated role, coupled with a commitment to
improve services for workers. Given the ongoing scope for existing recruitment
practices in Viet Nam to be strengthened, and noting recruitment agencies may
currently lack the capacity to develop effective internal processes, closer
consideration should be given to the extent to which the legislation can be
effectively implemented. This includes consideration of DOLAB’s role as arbitrator
of second-time complaints and in reviewing the responses of recruitment agencies
to first-time complaints.
In light of this, the benefits of first-time complaints instreamlining processes are
likely only to be realized if there is sufficient support for the implementation
of the Decree. The Decree’s accompanying Circular, which is currently under
development, has the potential to provide guidance for all parties in managing
first-time and second-time complaints and monitoring their progress. The timely
establishment of the DOLAB database on complaints also has the potential to serve
as an important aid in the implementation of Decree No. 119 and in increasing
coordination between involved stakeholders.
22
4
Complaint mechanisms in practice: results from the field research
Understanding the way legislation governing complaints for migrant workers is

implemented in practice is crucial in considering the effectiveness of the laws and
identifying where improvements can be made. As such, the qualitative interviews
with migrant workers and local officials in Quang Ngai, Ha Tinh and Thanh Hoa
provinces were a critical component of this research (see Table 8 below).
Table 8. Provinces surveyed by district and commune

Province
Quang Ngai province
Son Tay district
Son Tinh commune
Tay Tra district
Tra Lanh commune
Ha Tinh province
Cam Xuyen district
Cam Nhuong commune
Thach Ha district
Thach Kenh commune
Thanh Hoa province
Thieu Hoa district
Thieu Do commune
Hau Loc district
Ngu Loc commune
Source: field research
Thanh Hoa and Ha Tinh were targeted for interviews given the large number of
migrant workers from these provinces who travel abroad each year. The total
number of migrant workers travelling abroad from Quang Ngai is much lower in
comparison, however, interviewing workers from this province also enabled the
experiences of ethnic minority migrant workers to be captured by the study, given
Quang Ngai’s significant ethnic minority population (see Table 9 below).
Table 9. Approximate number of migrant workers by provinces surveyed, 2007-13

Province Number of migrant workers Number of destination countries
Quang Ngai 2 000 30

Ha Tinh 43 102 54
Thanh Hoa 63 068 58
Source: results from the field research
23
Officials noted the actual number of migrant workers was likely to be much higher
taking into account the unknown number of workers who migrate through irregular
channels, and gaps in information provided by some recruitment agencies.
4.1 Profile of the workers interviewed

In-depth interviews were conducted with 44 workers who considered their rights
to have been violated during the migration process.
Figure 3. Number of interviewees by gender, age, and employment status
38
33 34
11 10
6
Gender (Men/Women) Age (25-35/35+) Employment status prior to

migration (no stable
employment/employed)
Among workers surveyed:

38 were male and six were female.
Three-quarters of the workers were 25 to 35 years old (N=33), with the
remainder being over 35 years old.
One-quarter belonged to the Hre ethnic minority group (Quang Ngai province)
(N=11).
The majority had returned prematurely from Malaysia and Libya.
More than three-quarters (N=33) indicated they did not have a stable job in
Viet Nam. The main work performed by workers in Viet Nam was in
agriculture, with just a fifth (N=9) engaged in other work, such as carpentry or
handicrafts.
Just over half (N=25) had commenced, and around just over a tenth (N=6) had
completed, upper secondary education. The remainder had primary education
or lower secondary education.
4.2 Experiences with complaint mechanisms in practice

The 44 migrant workers interviewed were selected because they reported to have
experienced difficulties during the migration process. Issues had arisen at various
stages during the migration cycle, including prior to departure, while living abroad,
and upon return. When seeking to lodge a complaint, interview results indicate
that workers struggled to navigate the process. Further, when a complaint was
lodged, both complainants and local authorities felt they had difficulty in managing
the complaints process.
24
Almost one in three (N= 13) interviewees decided not to proceed with making a
complaint due to a lack of knowledge of where, or how, to lodge it, or due to a
belief that the complaint would not be given due consideration. Other barriers
identified during interviews included a lack of understanding by migrant workers of
their rights, including rights under the complaints process, or fear of an adverse
response from their employer in their destination.
4.2.1 Nature of the complaints

Pre-departure
Loans incurred by workers to facilitate migration were as high as VND30 million
(US$1,405), however, the costs involved did not guarantee deployment. Almost
one in five (N=8) workers interviewed indicated that despite making payments to
recruitment agencies they had neither been deployed, nor had payments
refunded, 12 months on.
Workers interviewed directed concerns to communal People’s Committees or

recruitment agencies. Communal People’s Committees often provided support to
the workers to assist in resolving the issues, or directed complaints to recruitment
agencies. It was noted that Chairpersons of communal People’s Committees would
also accompany workers to recruitment agencies in other provinces to request the
consideration of complaints, or would send requests for support to provincial and
central officials. The positive experiences of interviewees in dealing with People’s
Committees suggest that they are perceived as trusted and accessible contact
points for workers seeking to make complaints, and that they therefore have an
important role to play in the complaints process.
Many of those interviewed spoke of difficulties in completing paperwork due to

low levels of education, and limited access to recruitment agencies, which were
often based in other provinces.
Working abroad
Noting that all workers interviewed were identified as having experienced issues
during the migration process, the vast majority (nine out of ten workers; N=40)
were disappointed with their migration experience (see Table 10 below). The key
issue identified by workers interviewed was a discrepancy between contractual
arrangements in Viet Nam, and actual working conditions abroad.
Table 10. Problems experienced by migrants interviewed
Problems experienced Percentage interviewed
Lower salaries than agreed 100

Longer hours than agreed 95
Insufficient food, accommodation, utility arrangements 90
Differences in work agreed to undertake and work performed 80
Occupational, health and safety concerns 75
Safety and security concerns 50
Personal documents stolen 7
25
All workers interviewed were paid salaries significantly lower than stipulated in
their employment contract, which in some cases were lower than subsistence
levels in the destination country, meaning they had to return home early. More
than nine out of ten workers were required to work longer hours than agreed to
and nine out of ten workers also experienced issues with arrangements regarding
food, accommodation or utilities.
Discrepancies between the work undertaken in the destination country, and type
of job agreed to prior to departure, were reported by four out of five interview
participants. In instances where workers interviewed attempted to address this, it
was met with a negative reaction from their employer. There were multiple reports
of interviewees being sent home for requesting days off, even though this had been
agreed under employment contracts.
All workers interviewed felt that the jobs, salaries and working hours performed
overseas should be equivalent to the commitment made prior to departure. In light
of the concerns raised about working conditions abroad, this statistic is
unsurprising, but is nevertheless a violation of a legal contract.
Half of the workers interviewed also reported concerns regarding safety and
security, including physical or verbal abuse from their employer, with three out of
four workers reporting occupational health and safety issues arising from work in
hot or hazardous workplaces, while one in fifteen workers reported having
personal documents stolen.
A significant majority of workers interviewed faced challenges in communicating
with key individuals and organizations in Viet Nam, with more than four out of five
reporting difficulties contacting recruitment agencies or their families while
overseas. Despite the legal requirement that recruitment agencies advise workers
of the role of Labour Management Sections operating within Vietnamese
diplomatic missions abroad, the majority of interviewees were unaware of their
existence or functions. The majority of workers nevertheless felt that these
services should have been available, with more than four out of five of those
interviewed considering the overseas presence of local stakeholders, for example
recruitment agencies, to be important, particularly given language barriers faced
by workers when interacting with foreign employers.
When interview participants did raise concerns with foreign employers or
recruitment agencies during deployment, many were not prepared to do so in
writing for fear of an adverse response from their employer, with reduced hours,
reduced payment or loss of employment being among the deterrents. Given
concerns about losing employment, workers may have perceived loss of their
deposit upon return to Viet Nam as a further potential risk, in the event
recruitment agencies refused to liquidate contracts on the basis workers had
breached the terms of their employment. As a key motivation for migrant workers
to move abroad is the prospect of employment opportunities, particularly
increased income for their family, and an ability to pay off debts, such
considerations were likely to have been decisive factors in dissuading workers from
making complaints.
Reintegration
More than four out of five (N=37) of those interviewed were still in debt, and one
in ten (N=4) had sold land or livestock to repay their loan. Only one in four (N=11)
were able to find local employment upon return, or had moved elsewhere to gain
employment. Issues were also identified with recruitment agencies failing to
liquidate contracts appropriately upon workers’ return, meaning that deposits
26
could not be recovered, including for workers returning from Libya due to political
unrest.
Relatedly, other workers interviewed reported seeking to reclaim deposits from

recruitment agencies when returning prematurely through no fault of their own,
with DOLISA’s assistance. However, in a number of cases DOLAB’s advice was that
workers had mistaken a broker or service fee for the deposit and could not reclaim
the funds. This highlights the importance of workers being clearly informed by
recruitment agencies about payments they are required to make, the purpose of
these payments, and the need for receipts provided by recruitment agencies to
clearly reflect this. It also suggests that certain recruitment agencies are failing to
fulfil their ongoing responsibilities to workers after deployment, or are focussed on
obtaining fees from workers to the detriment of robust recruitment and selection
processes and ensuring migrants are equipped for working overseas.
A further issue relating to costs arose where migrant workers were required to
return early after failing to meet health requirements abroad, despite passing
health checks in Viet Nam prior to departure. In many such cases, both recruitment
agencies and the health facilities refused to take responsibility for this issue,
leaving workers at a significant financial disadvantage.
Box 2
The experiences of workers: what can go wrong?*
The field research revealed that migrant workers moving abroad can suffer serious
issues during the migration process, which can impact on their physical safety,
health and ongoing financial security. Here is a snapshot of a few of these stories.
Vinh: Although suffering from kidney stones, Vinh was assessed as fit to travel to
Malaysia under a 12-month contract. Upon arriving in Malaysia, Vinh had to
self-fund his medical expenses and ultimately had to return prematurely to Viet
Nam. He is still in debt for the loan he took out to fund his travel.
Van: Van was accused of stealing money from his employer. Van was arrested by
police and detained for two months before being deported to Viet Nam. He received
no support during his detention.
Ha: Ha’s son migrated to Malaysia for two years in 2004. He could only borrow VND5
million (US$235) and so had to borrow from relatives to pay the VND22 million
(US$1,034) owing to the recruitment company. At the time of interview Ha’s son still
owed VND20 million (US$940).
*Names of workers have been changed.
4.2.2 Process for making a complaint

Workers interviewed who lodged a complaint generally used more than one
channel to do so. All of the interviewees who lodged a complaint telephoned their
licensed recruitment agency. Most complainants followed through on complaints,
with seven out of ten (N= 30) following up with a written complaint to their
recruitment agency or local authorities.
Other means used by interview participants to raise issues included visits to the
recruitment agency (one in four workers; N=10), communal People’s Committees
(three out of five workers; N=27), district People’s Committees and provincial
DOLISA offices (two out of five workers; N=19) or public security agencies (one in
six workers; N=7). Some interview participants also sent letters to courts (one in
five workers; N=9). One quarter of those interviewed sent multiple requests. 27
The fact that workers often sent multiple complaints suggests they were unsure of
where complaints should be directed, or authorities were unresponsive. However,
it also highlights possible difficulties for authorities when complaints are directed
through multiple channels for resolution.
Table 11. Complaint channels for migrants interviewed
Means of making a complaint Percentage interviewed N = 44

Telephone call to recruitment agency 100 44
Letter to recruitment agency/local authority 70 30
Visit to communal People’s Committees 61 27
Visit to district People’s 43 19
Committees/provincial DOLISA offices
Letter to DOLAB 25 11
Visit to recruitment agency 23 10
Courts 20 9
Visit to public security agencies 16 7
A further issue identified during the interviews was difficulty in compiling evidence to
support a claim. This may have been due to the absence of a written contract because
employment contracts were not prepared in Vietnamese, discrepancies between
contracts signed by workers in Viet Nam and those provided in the destination
country, or other issues such as limited language proficiency. One worker indicated
that the staff they dealt with encouraged them to abide by the employment contract,
despite the worker’s concerns.
Approximately one in three workers (N=13) interviewed who had submitted a
complaint received a response. However, all of that group felt that the complaint
was not settled to their satisfaction. This suggests not only that the existing
complaints process needs to be improved to ensure complaints are acknowledged,
but also that the system itself is unresponsive to the needs of workers.
Box 3
Where is my son?
Vietnamese worker still missing in Malaysia after eight years

Trang,* then 32, was reported missing while working in Malaysia in November 2006.
Born to a farming family in Thach Ha District in the central province of Ha Tinh, Trang set
forth on a new career path in Malaysia in 2003 hopeful of changing his life.
According to his father, Trang had to pay VND24 million to move abroad (US$1,650 at the
2003 exchange rate) for fees and orientation courses. The entire amount – which was a
fortune for a farmer – was borrowed from his extended family.
Trang was sent to work in Kuala Lumpur by a recruitment agency and vocational school.
Between 2003 and 2006, Trang sent home a total of VND11 million (US$680, at the 2006
exchange rate).
In November 2006 Trang’s family was informed by his friends that Trang was missing.
Upon receiving this news Trang’s family met with, and sent an official request for
assistance to, Trang’s recruitment agency. The recruitment agency advised Trang’s family
that Trang “illegally ran away from his workplace” but failed to explain how they came to
that conclusion or where Trang was “hiding”.
28
Trang’s family sent a subsequent complaint later that month to Ha Tinh DOLISA and the
recruitment agency and vocational school. Having failed to receive a response, in February
2007 Trang’s family sent a further complaint to each of these organizations and in March
2007, wrote again, this time to the Prime Minister, MOLISA and the recruitment agency.
After Trang’s family sent a further complaint to MOLISA in July 2007, the case was
transferred to MOLISA’s DOLAB that requested that the recruitment agency expend more
effort on Trang’s case.
Further responses from the recruitment agency and authorities failed to address
questions raised by Trang’s family as to where he was, where his personal belongings
were and who was responsible for his disappearance. Not giving up, the family kept
sending complaints over and over again.
In 2008 and 2009, the recruitment agency gave Trang’s family a total of VND36 million
(US$2,100 at the 2009 exchange rate) as financial support and completed Trang’s contract
liquidation. At the time of interview, over ten years after his initial departure, no more
information on Trang’s fate had been revealed despite his family filing complaints each year.
“I don’t have much time left in this world, my only wish is to get a confirmation from the
authorities on whether my son is still alive or already dead,” said Trang’s father, now
nearly 90. “If he has already passed away, I will ultimately have to set up an altar to
worship him before I myself lie down.”
*Name of worker has been changed.
Local authorities
As a key contact point for aggrieved migrant workers, the experience of local
authorities in facilitating the resolution of complaints was an important element of
the field research.
Reiterating the responses from workers interviewed, local authorities interviewed

perceived that many workers were unaware of their rights and responsibilities or
how to make a complaint. They were also unaware of the relevant authorities able
to assist in complaints resolutions, and workers were generally considered to have
low education and skills levels, a perception likely to have been compounded in the
case of female migrants given their increased likelihood of performing low-skilled
work abroad.
Local officials perceived recruitment agencies as unwilling to fulfil responsibilities
owed to migrant workers after deployment, and as unwilling to work with local
authorities to resolve issues for workers when they arose. These issues were
compounded by the fact that recruitment agencies were often not located in the
provinces where workers lived. Responses suggested that there should be regular
inspections of recruitment agencies’ practices to ensure compliance with their
obligations to workers.
Officials interviewed also reported a lack of coordination across relevant
government agencies and other stakeholders and a lack of clear guidanceon how to
manage complaints. They also considered that sanctions issued for violations were
often not strong enough. The Chairperson of the People’s Committee in one
commune noted that in seven serious cases where significant debts had been
incurred by workers who had not been placed abroad, workers had written to the
Hoan Kiem District Court three times but had failed to receive a response. There
were also conflicting reports from officials regarding whether complaints claimed
to have been submitted had actually been received by agencies. This further
highlights deficiencies in the complaints process, whether regarding the ability of
29
workers to effectively make and direct a complaint to the relevant authority, or

regarding the capacity of competent authorities to manage the complaint.
Officials also spoke of the risks created for workers in dealing with unlicensed
recruitment agencies, including vulnerability to human trafficking.
Box 4
No money, no return
The family of a Vietnamese worker in Malaysia was forced to pay their son’s
recruitment agency so that he could return home after a serious work accident.
Ngu’s* story is illustrative of the range of problems migrant workers may encounter
including underpayment and injury. It also highlights the lack of support some
workers receive from their recruitment agency when they face issues abroad and how
an unresolved complaint can lead to financial hardship.
Ngu from Thieu Hoa District in Thanh Hoa, was deployed to work in Malaysia in
March 2013 by a recruitment agency. Under his contract, Ngu’s basic salary was 35
Malaysian ringgit (MYR) (US$9.60) for an eight hour day. However, Ngu worked up to
12 hours a day without overtime compensation.
Ngu had a work accident 27 days after leaving Viet Nam. According to Ngu, his
employer did not send him to the hospital after the accident happened, but left him
in pain for another four hours. As a result, two of Ngu’s fingers were irreversibly
damaged. As treatment, he was given medication to take for five days.
Unable to continue working and with no money, Ngu called home to seek help. When
his family contacted his recruitment agency in Thanh Hoa, they requested Ngu’s
family pay an extra VND13 million (US$630) to cover his air ticket, as they argued that
Ngu had broken his contract.
Ngu’s family paid the money as requested in May 2013, hoping their son could be
brought home as soon as possible for treatment. They also sent a complaint to their
commune’s People’s Committee, which was elevated to the People’s Committee of
Thieu Hoa District.
In June 2013, the district People’s Committee sent an official letter requesting action
to DOLISA in Thanh Hoa Province, and DOLAB. A week later, Thanh Hoa’s DOLISA
wrote to DOLAB, requesting that the recruitment agency send staff to Malaysia to
settle the case. DOLAB then sent an official request to the agency.
Two months after paying the extra money, however, Ngu was still in Malaysia. In July
2013, his family filed another complaint to Thanh Hoa’s DOLISA, which again
forwarded the case to DOLAB. The authority sent a further letter to the recruitment
agency, requesting that they settle the case and bring Ngu home.
Ngu finally arrived in Viet Nam over two months after his family paid the agency
additional money to cover his airfare, and three months after the accident. He was
hospitalized for treatment, costing him another VND40 million (US$1,950). His injury
was left untreated for too long and his health was permanently affected.
At the time of interview, Ngu’s family had not received a refund, and Ngu’s case has
still not been brought before the courts.
* Name of worker has been changed.
Source: field research.
30
4.3 Analysis of field research

The results from the field research confirm that when an issue occurs abroad, it can
arise at any stage of the migration process. It was found that more than four out of
five workers (N=37) were still suffering financially from the negative effects of
migration, and remained in debt, thereby actively negating the overarching policy
objective of migration as a means of reducing poverty, as well as entrenching,
rather than improving, financial difficulties for migrant families. Reports from
workers that they received lower salaries in destination countries than agreed in
Viet Nam, were charged high recruitment costs, and had difficulties in finding
employment upon their return to Viet Nam, are likely explanations as to why high
debt levels were reported.
Official statistics show that the proportion of women migrant workers from Viet
Nam is significantly higher than the proportion of women interviewed, with only
six women identified for participation in the interviews. Further research needs to
be conducted to consider the experiences of women migrants, including whether
they may be more reluctant or face more obstacles in voicing complaints than men.
This would be of concern, considering the particular vulnerability of women to
exploitation, and the impact of negative migration experiences on long-term
financial security and employment prospects. It is imperative that further research
be undertaken with a larger sample size of women, in order to assess gender
specific issues that may be pertinent to the complaints process.
Many workers interviewed indicated that they did not have access to specific
information about their employer or workplace prior to migrating, suggesting there
may be a correlation between false information or poor access to information prior
to departure, and the likelihood of an issue arising. While this lack of
understanding or access to information maybe exacerbated by low education or
skills levels, this only serves to highlight the importance of ensuring
pre-employment and pre-departure education is reliable and tailored to the skills
and education levels of prospective migrants. Importantly, it should include
sufficient information for workers regarding key terms and conditions of their
employment, their rights and responsibilities under relevant legislation, and the
availability of support mechanisms abroad, such as Labour Management Sections.
The results from the interviews suggest that problems most often relate to key
aspects of the employment relationship or work conditions, such as safety, salaries
or working hours. Notably, all workers interviewed were paid salaries lower than
advised prior to departure. Inflated costs charged by recruitment agencies were
also identified as an issue.
Overall, the number of complaints made to DOLAB is small in comparison to the
N = 44
number of workers moving abroad each year. When viewed in context of national
legislation, practical issues faced by Vietnamese workers in progressing complaints
and when compared with data from other countries of origin, this is unlikely to be
due to a lack of problems faced by migrant workers. Rather, it suggests a systemic
problem with the complaint mechanism, and that workers are not lodging official
complaints. This could be because of the limited coverage of legislation and
regulations, because of concerns about the consequences of making a complaint,
because of a lack of awareness or lack of clarity as to the appropriate complaint
mechanism for doing so, or because of a perception that a resolution of the
complaint is unlikely. This is supported by the field research where almost a third of
the workers interviewed did not proceed with complaints, either because they did
not think it would receive support, or because they did not know where, or how, to
submit it.
31
Notably, all complaints made were directed to the recruitment agency in the first
instance, with People’s Committees also being common choices for follow-up
complaints. The fact that only one in three workers who made a complaint (N=10)
received a response, and all of those who received a response were unsatisfied
with the outcome, further underscores the underlying issues with the institutional
framework. A lack of responsiveness from recruitment agencies could be explained
by an unwillingness to engage on issues that reflect negatively on their operations,
or that could uncover systemic issues; a lack of incentive to provide assistance
when service fees have already been received; or that they are not compelled to
fulfil their responsibilities. While recruitment agencies are the immediate contact
point for workers when experiencing issues, the fact that their complaints are not
being resolved through this channel casts doubt over the likely effectiveness of the
new first-time complaint mechanism provided in Decree No. 119, unless internal
processes within recruitment agencies are strengthened. In this regard, VAMAS can
play a key role in supporting recruitment agencies in managing migrant worker
complaints, building on the work already undertaken through its Code of Conduct.
The attitude of recruitment agencies also suggests that there are insufficient
resources being directed by government and recruitment agencies towards
enforcement of relevant laws, with the result that there is lack of concern among
unscrupulous recruitment agencies that they will be held to account for violations
committed against workers.
A failure by authorities to respond to complaints could be explained by a number
of factors. Migrant workers may not be able to provide sufficient information to
enable complaints to be considered, indicating they require additional assistance
to complete or obtain, relevant documentation. Alternatively, limited resources or
low awareness of issues faced by migrant workers may mean low priority is given
by officials to responding to migrant worker complaints. Officials may also be
unsure of how to manage complaints, particularly given the complex issues
involved, and have difficulties liaising with unresponsive recruitment agencies.
The field research highlights the adverse impact that a lack of clarity around
processes or coordination between stakeholders may have on the outcome of a
complaint, as evidenced by the length of time taken to resolve complaints, the
number of authorities involved in managing a complaint or supporting
complainants, and the satisfaction of complainants themselves.
32
Conclusion
The introduction of the Law on Vietnamese Workers Working Abroad Under

Contractand Decree No. 119, was a positive step in establishing a specific
mechanism to allow migrant workers to bring complaints. However, the fact that
different complaint mechanisms apply to different groups of workers is notable,
and complaint mechanisms need to be enhanced and the process for making
complaints streamlined.
Decree No. 119 explictly does not apply to workers migrating through a
state-owned recruitment agency, or under a contract negotiated directly with an
employer. Irregular migrants are also generally not covered by formal means of
recourse. The development of the Circular to accompany Decree No. 119 is an
opportunity for additional clarification of key provisions such as the evidentiary
requirements for making a complaint, and responsibilities of recruitment agencies
in managing a complaint against them.
Qualitatively assessing data on complaints and responses issued under Decree No.
119, by recruitment agencies and DOLAB, would be helpful in assessing the
Decree’s effectiveness, including uncovering any gender specific issues. This would
complement the new DOLAB database established to record, and track, migrant
worker complaints. Furthermore, qualitative assessment could reveal information
regarding the effectiveness of the first-time complaint mechanism including
determining if recruitment agencies are dedicating appropriate resources to the
management of complaints, the extent to which they are making evidence
available to workers to support their claims, and how many second-time
complaints are progressed to DOLAB.
There are practical challenges experienced by workers and government officials in
managing complaints, even where there is genuine intent for them to be resolved
satisfactorily. The development of guidance material for key parties involved in the
complaint making process would greatly assist. Detailed operational guidelines
would bridge the gap between the good intentions of the legislation and their
practical realization. This is particularly important given the number of enterprises
the state owns, or has a partial stake in.
For workers, guidance material could outline who to contact; evidence needed to
make a complaint or where to seek assistance to obtain it; and the overall process
for making a complaint. For local officials, guidance could focus on their role in
managing a complaint, the roles and responsibilities of other competent
authorities and recruitment agencies, how to tailor their approach for different
workers, such as those who migrate to different destinations or through a variety
of channels (for example, workers who have been sent abroad by a recruitment
agency or who have negotiated a contract directly with an employer), and how to
handle complaints made jointly by workers. The field results also suggest that
33
strengthening coordination efforts in the management of complaints, both

between local, provincial and central authorities, as well as recruitment agencies,
would result in tangible benefits for migrant workers and other stakeholders.
The responsibilities of recruitment agencies to assist workers, local authorities to
resolve complaints and central authorities to compel enterprises to respond to
complaints needs to be clarified. In the absence of effective enforcement, there is
limited incentive for recruitment agencies to assist in the process; additional
consideration should be given to the sanctions for failing to provide information in
a timely and transparent manner. Coupled with the continued promotion of best
practice by recruitment agencies through the VAMAS Code of Conduct, a system of
effectively enforced sanctions would reinforce the importance of strong and
accountable recruitment practices.
34
Bibliography
ASEAN Forum on Labour Migration (AFML). 2013. Recommendations of the 6th

AFML (Bandar Seri Begawan).
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). 2007. ASEAN Declaration on the
Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers (Cebu).
Bhula-Or, R. Forthcoming. Empowering low-skilled migrant workers to access griev-
ance mechanisms: A comparative study between Thailand and Japan, Doctoral
Thesis.
Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. 1994. Law on organization of the
People’s Council and the People’s Committee (Hanoi).
—. 1999. Penal Code No. 15/1999/QH10 (Hanoi).
—. 2005. Law on Enterprises No. 60/2005/QH11 (Hanoi).
—. 2006. Law on Vietnamese Workers Working Abroad Under Contract No.
72/2006/QH11 (Hanoi).
—. 2007. Decree on detailing and guiding the implementation of a number of
articles of the Law on Vietnamese workers working abroad under contract No.
126/2007/ND-CP (Hanoi).
—. 2007. Decree on sanctioning of administrative violations in the sending of
Vietnamese workers abroad for employment No. 144/2007/NĐ-CP (Hanoi).
—. 2010. Law on inspection No. 56/2010/QH12 (Hanoi).
—. 2011a. Law on the prevention and combat of human trafficking No.
66/2011/QH12 (Hanoi).
—. 2011b Law on Complaints No. 02/2011-QH13 (Hanoi).
—. 2011c. Law on Denunciations No. 03/2011/QH13 (Hanoi).
—. 2012. Law on handling administrative violations No. 15/2012/QH13 (Hanoi).
—. 2013a. Decree on penalties for administrative violations against regulations on
labor, social insurance, and overseas manpower supply No. 95/2013/ND-CP
(Hanoi).
—. 2013b. Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam (Hanoi).
—. 2014. Decree stipulating details of some articles of the Labor Code, the Law on
vocational training and Law on Vietnamese workers working abroad under contract
on complaint and denunciation No. 119/2014/ND-CP (Hanoi).
—. 2014. Law on Enterprises No. 68/2014/QH13 (Hanoi).
35
International Labour Organization (ILO). Migration for Employment Convention,

1949 (No. 97).
—. Migrant Workers Convention, 1975 (No. 143).
—.1997a. Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181).
—. 1997b. Private Employment Agencies Recommendation, 1997 (No. 188).
—. 2006. ILO multilateral framework on labour migration (Geneva).
—. 2007. Guide to private employment agencies: Regulation, monitoring and
enforcement (Geneva).
—. 2011a. Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 198).
—. 2011b. Domestic Workers Recommendation, 2011 (No. 201).
—. 2013b. Regulating recruitment of migrant workers: An assessment of complaint
mechanisms in Thailand (Bangkok). Available at: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/
groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/documents/publication/wcms_226498.pdf [8
Mar. 2015].
Ratha, D.; De, S.; Dervisevic, E.; Eigen-Zucchi, C.; Plaza, S.; Schuettler, K.; Wyss, H.;
Yi, S.; Yousefi, S.R.2014. Migration and Development Brief 23. (Washington, World
Bank). Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/
334934-1288990760745/MigrationandDevelopmentBrief23.pdf [8 Mar. 2015].
United Nations. 1990. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of
All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.
Viet Nam Association of Manpower Supply. 2010. Code of conduct: Applied to
Vietnamese enterprises sending workers for overseas employment (Hanoi).
35
Complaint mechanisms for migrant workers: An overview of law and practice in Viet Nam
increasing attention. Problems can arise from the time a prospective migrant worker begins to consider moving
Although it is understood that migrant workers and authorities alike face issues in managing complaints, to date
Viet Nam. To assist in addressing this, the International Labour Organization cooperated with the Ministry of
both the legislative framework underpinning complaints and the practical experiences of workers and authorities.
and prompts consideration of ways in which the complaints framework could be enhanced and made more
responsive to the needs of migrant workers and authorities.
-
gion (GMS TRIANGLE project) -
tion of recruitment and labour protection policies and practices in the Greater Mekong Subregion, to ensure safer
-
workers’ and employers’ organisations) are engaged in each of the GMS TRIANGLE project’s objectives—strength-
ening policy and legislation, building the capacity of stakeholders and providing services to migrant workers.
and experiences of workers, employers and service providers.
Ministry of Labour, War invalids and Social Affairs

Wcms 482928

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wcms 482928

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wcms 482928

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International

Tripartite Action to Protect the Rights of Migrant Workers

Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

ISBN:9789221300458; 9789221300465 (web pdf); 9789221300700 (CD ROM)

(ISBN 9789228300451, 9789228300468 (web pdf)), Hanoi, 2015

ILO Cataloguing in Publication Data

Cover photo: © ILO/G. Sziraczki

Printed in Viet Nam

Foreword ...................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... viii

Acronyms and abbreviations .......................................................................................... xv

Chapter 1: Research approach ........................................................................................ 1

Chapter 2: International standards and regional initiatives on complaint mechanisms ...... 6

3.6 Decree No. 95 ......................................................................................... 15

Table 2: Ratiﬁcation of selected international instruments in the ASEAN region .................... 7

Table 3: Recommendations on complaint mechanisms from the 6th AFML ........................... 9

Table 4: Migrant worker complaints received by DOLAB 2007-11, by destination .................. 18

Table 5: Migrant worker complaints received by DOLAB 2007-11, by issue ............................ 19

Table 6: Migrant worker complaints received by selected countries of origin ......................... 19

Table 8: Provinces surveyed by district and commune ............................................................ 23

Table 9: Approximate number of migrant workers by provinces surveyed, 2007-13 ............... 23

Table 10: Problems experienced by migrants interviewed......................................................... 23

Table 11: Complaint channels for migrants interviewed ........................................................... 28

Figure 2: Ranking of recruitment agencies in Viet Nam (2014) ................................................. 17

Figure 3: Percentage of interviewees by gender, age, and employment status

List of text boxes

Box 2: The experiences of workers: What can go wrong?....................................................... 27

Box 3: Where is my son?........................................................................................................ 28

Box 4: No money, no return................................................................................................... 30

As increasing numbers of Vietnamese workers travel to all corners of the world to

To better understand the operation of complaint mechanisms for migrant workers

Framework governing complaint mechanisms

There are a number of international instruments and regional initiatives that

The current Vietnamese legal framework provides mechanisms for migrant

Despite the existence of a legislative framework in Viet Nam, gaps remain in

Overall, the number of complaints recorded by the DOLAB Inspectorate is very

Practical experiences of workers and authorities in managing complaints

Understanding the way legislation governing complaints for migrant workers is

Barriers to making a complaint include not knowing where, or how, to direct a

Given that there is a legislative framework to enable ordering of complaints,

Legislative reform and implementation

b. consider aligning complaints procedures for all migrant workers to provide

Training and guidance material

AFML ASEAN Forum on Migrant Labour

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

DOLAB Department of Overseas Labour, Viet Nam

ESC Employment Service Centre

GDP gross domestic product

ICMW International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All

MoLISA Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Aﬀairs, Viet Nam

MOU memorandum of understanding

MRC Migrant Resource Centre

VAMAS Viet Nam Association of Manpower Supply

VAMAS CoC-VN Viet Nam Association of Manpower Supply Code of Conduct

VGCL Viet Nam General Confederation of Labour

VIJUSAP Viet Nam Association of Judicial Support for the Poor

VND Vietnamese dong

1.1 Purpose of the study

Problems commonly arise for workers where there is a lack of information, or

Ratiﬁcation by Sabah. Signed. Denounced.