Company posts disciplinary action against intern online, causing a stir.

A media company in Ho Chi Minh City posted a disciplinary decision against an intern, revoking the internship confirmation stamp, causing a stir on social media.

On November 29th, social media and the student community were abuzz with a public Facebook post about a media company in Ho Chi Minh City announcing disciplinary action against an intern.

Information from Van Lang University confirms that the intern in question is a student of the university. The university received an email from the company regarding the disciplinary decision against the intern, at the same time the company posted the decision on social media.

The company has revoked the internship confirmation stamp.

Accordingly, Vnnet Media and Advertising Company Limited posted on social media platforms the content of a decision to discipline student V. (Van Lang University) - an intern at the company.

The violation mentioned in the decision is "using defiant language and displaying inappropriate behavior towards superiors, violating company regulations on conduct and communication." The disciplinary action is: "Revoking the internship at the company and revoking the internship confirmation stamp."

The company's decision also requested that Van Lang University review the matter and take appropriate action to reprimand student V.

The company then posted a "disciplinary notice" on Facebook to explain the disciplinary decision.

Vnnet company stated that student V. began her internship at the company on September 8th and is expected to finish on December 8th, in accordance with the company's minimum 3-month internship requirement.

On November 23rd, V. came to the company and requested early confirmation of her internship. In the spirit of supporting students, the company facilitated the signing and stamping of her documents on the same day. V.'s internship score was recorded at 10/10, based on the student's self-assessment.

Later that same afternoon, after completing the necessary procedures, V. announced that due to school commitments, she would be ending her internship from November 24th. However, this sudden departure was not announced in advance, leaving the company unable to arrange a replacement to take over the work. Therefore, the company requested V. to continue assisting for a short period until a suitable replacement is found.

On November 25th, at approximately 9:30 PM, V. again announced via text message that she was terminating her internship immediately, claiming she had "completed the required internship time as stipulated by the school." However, the company determined that this termination was unfounded because:

1. According to the school's announcement, the official internship period is from September 8th to November 30th. V.'s decision to leave before the deadline is against regulations.

2. The company offered to contact the school in writing to clarify the matter. However, V.'s communication in the messages was noted to be uncooperative, defiant, and included challenging remarks and inappropriate behavior towards superiors.

"It's possible that Ms. V. thought that having received a perfect score of 10 and the company seal before the deadline meant the company couldn't take disciplinary action. Given the above developments, the company's Board of Directors met and issued a disciplinary decision…".

The entire incident unfolded and caused a stir on social media on November 28th and 29th, especially in student groups.

Interns are not employees of the company.

According to lawyer Nguyen Ngo Quang Nhat (Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association), in principle, student interns are not employees of the enterprise, no labor relationship arises, and they are not subject to the regulations of the Labor Code.

Therefore, the company's issuance of a written "disciplinary decision" applicable to a permanent employee is legally incorrect and lacks basis in the relationship between the enterprise and the intern.

Secondly, the company's act of publicly disclosing the names and alleged misconduct of interns on social media without their consent constitutes a violation of legally protected personal rights, including:

Individual rights include: the right to one's image (Article 32 of the Civil Code); the right to protection of honor, dignity, and reputation (Article 34 of the Civil Code); and the right to privacy, personal secrets, and family secrets (Article 38 of the Civil Code).

Interns have the right to request that the company remove, correct, apologize for, and claim compensation for damages if any.

Thirdly, the company had previously confirmed internships for students ahead of schedule, but then contradicted this in official documents and public announcements. This demonstrates inconsistency in internal governance and could lead to the misunderstanding that the company is deliberately trying to "blame" the students.

In their dealings with interns, businesses need to demonstrate transparency, honesty, and consistency, avoiding actions that could harm the rights or reputation of the students.

"Overall, the incident shows that the company handled the situation unprofessionally, especially given the widespread public disclosure of the information on social media. The company should have worked privately with the school; reassessed the process of receiving, guiding, and managing interns instead of using 'disciplinary' measures and publicly posting the information as they would for employees."

"This not only harms individual students but can also affect the reputation of the business itself," Mr. Nhat commented.

DAN THUAN

Source: https://tuoitre.vn/cong-ty-dang-ky-luat-thuc-tap-sinh-len-mang-gay-xon-xao-20251129095532354.htm