Do employees have the right to refuse fingerprint- or facial recognition-based timekeeping?

In the context of the accelerating digital transformation in human resources management, many enterprises have replaced traditional timekeeping methods with fingerprint or facial recognition systems. This solution improves accuracy, prevents timekeeping fraud, and optimizes the management of employees’ working hours. 

However, fingerprints and facial images are not merely authentication tools but also biometric data intrinsically associated with each individual’s identifying characteristics. Therefore, the question arises as to whether an enterprise may require the use of this timekeeping method on the basis of its labor management authority, or whether employees have the right to refuse to provide their fingerprint or facial data. 

1. Labor management authority does not supersede data protection obligations: 

Under the Labor Code 2019 (“Labor Code 2019”), employers have the right to manage and direct employees, while employees are obliged to comply with internal labor regulations. Accordingly, enterprises may prescribe timekeeping methods to record working hours and calculate salaries. 

However, Article 118.2 of the Labor Code 2019 provides that internal labor regulations must not contravene relevant laws. Therefore, the inclusion of fingerprint- or facial recognition-based timekeeping in internal labor regulations does not automatically authorize an enterprise to collect and use such data. 

Under Article 31.2 of the 2025 Law on Personal Data Protection (“PDP Law”) and Article 4.1(dd) of Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP (“Decree 356”), fingerprints and facial images used to identify individuals constitute biometric data classified as sensitive personal data. Therefore, the use of such data for timekeeping purposes must comply with personal data protection laws. 

2. Do employees have the right to refuse? 

Article 11.1 of the PDP Law provides that personal data may be collected only with the data subject’s prior consent, unless otherwise provided by law. Ordinary timekeeping activities do not automatically fall within the circumstances in which data may be processed without consent under Article 19.1 of this Law. 

Accordingly, where an enterprise has not obtained valid consent and cannot establish another lawful basis, an employee has grounds to refuse to provide their fingerprint or facial data. However, the employee must still record their attendance using another lawful method arranged by the enterprise. 

3. Conditions for valid consent: 

Under Article 9.2 of the PDP Law, consent is valid only if it is given voluntarily and after the employee has been clearly informed of the type of data, the processing purpose, the data controller, and their rights and obligations. 

Articles 9.3 and 9.4 of this Law require consent to be clear, specific, and verifiable; silence or failure to respond must not be construed as consent. Under Article 6.1 of Decree 356, consent may be expressed in writing, through a recorded call, text message, email, a platform or application with a consent-request mechanism, or another method capable of being printed, reproduced, or verified. 

Under Articles 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 of Decree No. 356, enterprises must retain evidence of consent, must not establish consent by default or provide misleading instructions, and must clearly notify data subjects that the processed data constitutes sensitive personal data. 

Where consent is incorporated into an employment contract, internal labor regulations, or a mandatory form, its voluntary nature may be called into question. The enterprise must demonstrate that the employee was fully informed and given a genuine choice.  

4. Certain considerations for enterprises:

Current laws do not expressly require enterprises to provide an alternative timekeeping method. However, employee identification cards, QR codes, and timekeeping applications are appropriate alternatives for employees who do not consent to providing biometric data.  

Enterprises should also limit the scope of collection, retention period, and access rights; implement security measures; and delete the data once the processing purpose has been fulfilled. 

5. Conclusion: 

Employees are obliged to record their attendance but are not automatically required to provide their fingerprints or facial data merely because such requirement is included in internal labor regulations. If an enterprise has not obtained valid consent or does not have another lawful basis, the employee has grounds to refuse biometric timekeeping but must still record their attendance using another method. 

Submission date: Jun 20 2026 


Disclaimers:

This article is for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide any legal advice for any particular case. The legal provisions referenced in the content are in effect at the time of publication but may have expired at the time you read the content. We therefore advise that you always consult a professional consultant before applying any content.

For issues related to the content or intellectual property rights of the article, please email cs@apolatlegal.vn.

Apolat Legal is a law firm in Vietnam with experience and capacity to provide consulting services related to Employment and contact our team of lawyers in Vietnam via email info@apolatlegal.com.



Nguồn: https://ift.tt/i8rtbBO
Map: https://goo.gl/maps/JbCF1FiWPuD2Jsnx6
Thông tin: https://www.google.com.vn/search?q=Apolat+Legal&kponly=&kgmid=/g/11jkvqgmw_

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Conditions for Foreign Investors to Operate in the Labor Outsourcing Sector in Vietnam

In recent years, along with the rapid development of Vietnam’s economy, the demand for short-term, seasonal, or project-based labor has been increasing significantly. Enterprises, especially foreign-invested companies and factory projects in industrial parks and export processing zones, often have a recurring need for additional human resources but may not wish or be able to sign direct labor contracts. In this context, labor outsourcing services (also referred to as labor supply services) have emerged as an effective solution, enabling businesses to manage their workforce more flexibly while ensuring the protection of employees’ rights and benefits through their legal relationship with the labor outsourcing enterprise.  However, unlike normal business activities, labor outsourcing is classified under Vietnamese law as a conditional business line. Moreover, the scope of jobs that may be outsourced is restricted by legal regulations. This article provides a detailed analysis of the...
Read more

Overview of payment intermediary services and licensing procedures under Decree 52

This article provides an overview of payment intermediary services and the necessary procedures for applying for a License to provide such services as stipulated in Decree 52/2024/ND-CP regulating non-cash payments (“ Decree 52 ”). The content below covers the definition of payment intermediary services, the organizations authorized to provide them, and the specific dossier and procedures for issuing a License for the provision of payment intermediary services (“ Payment Intermediary License ”) as mandated by the State Bank of Vietnam.   1. Payment Intermediary Services Definition and Scope:  Payment intermediary services include the following specific activities:   Financial switching services;   International financial switching services;   Electronic clearing services;   E-wallet services;   Collection and payment support services; and   Electronic payment gateway services.   The provision of these ...
Read more

The role of intellectual property expert opinions in resolving intellectual property infringement

Image
Intellectual property infringement 1. The connection between expert opinions and resolving intellectual property infringement   The legal framework for intellectual property in Vietnam, especially the Law on Intellectual Property, clearly stipulates the role of IP expert assessment in determining infringement acts. An expert opinion issued by VIPRI is a crucial, highly specialized piece of evidence that provides a basis for agencies such as Courts, Police, Customs, etc., to assess the degree of similarity, likelihood of confusion, or other factors related to the infringement act.   Particularly in complex cases involving intellectual property rights such as inventions, industrial designs, trademarks, or copyrights, the expert opinion plays a pivotal role in clarifying specialized elements that disputing parties or competent authorities often find difficult to assess themselves. For instance, for inventions, determining novelty, inventive step, or industrial applicability ...
Read more