Under normal circumstances, in order to determine the extent of an employee’s duty, the content of the labor contract is the primary reference point. However, the difficulty is that in many cases, the labor contract does not contain such detailed job descriptions or, if any, the descriptions are very general and simple.

A typical example is a labor contract that only describes an employee’s job as a “lecturer”, or only provides a basic requirement of performing “lecturing work”. It follows that if “lecturing” is interpreted in its narrowest sense (i.e. only as class lecturing), would the employer have the right to require the employee to perform any jobs other than “lecturing” (e.g. test preparation, lesson preparation, test marking, etc.), which are inherent duties but are not clearly stated in the labor contract?

From a common sense viewpoint concerning the work of lecturing, it cannot be denied that the incidental but necessary duties of test preparation, lesson preparation, and test marking, etc. should be interpreted as being within a lecturer’s scope of work. Therefore, although not stated in the labor contract, the position of lecturer still requires the employee to perform jobs such as test preparation, lesson preparation, test marking, etc. Consequently, the employee has the duty of performing jobs other than the main job of “lecturing”, to fulfill the job objectives under the labor contract.

If it is assumed that the employee has the right to refuse performing any task other than “lecturing” (in its narrowest sense), would the employee breach his implied duty, i.e. the duty of serving the employer’s business interests?

To answer this question, it is necessary to specify the employee’s reason for refusing to perform the job.  Assuming that the employee’s refusal to perform work is a result of the employer requesting the employee to perform these tasks outside of working hours and therefore affecting the employee’s family life, the employee shall be fully justified and not be considered in breach of his/her implied duties.

However, if the employee refuses to perform a task with precise knowledge that their refusal will cause interruption to the employer’s business, or if the employee refuses to perform tasks that deliberately cause interruption to the employer’s business (e.g. failure to prepare lectures or grade papers), then such employee’s refusal can be considered as a breach of his/her implied duties. This also means a breach of the labor contract, because on the basis of his/her implied duties, an employee has to take appropriate actions to prevent interruption to the employer’s business.

Another matter worth considering is, in the event the employee refuses to perform the required tasks which are implied in the job description, whether the employer has the right to deduct a part of employee’s salary corresponding with the duties that have been breached?

Pursuant to Vietnam labor laws, the employer may justifiably not pay salary to the employee if such refusal to perform jobs is considered an action constituting a strike.  However, it is very difficult to conclude that the employee has “gone on strike” in these cases.  Therefore, if there is no standard for evaluation of job completion at the time of recruitment, there is no legal basis to support the employer’s refusal to pay salary due to the conduct of the employee.