You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

December 29, 2011

Laying Off Employees: Considerations for Manufacturers

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

As companies start to rebuild and recover from the recent devastating floods, many managers are taking a good hard look at their bottom line, searching for ways to survive and minimize loss. This assessment is happening in accounting departments nationwide, but is particularly prevalent in Thailand’s once-flooded industrial parks, where managers must contend with damaged machinery and a workforce on standby.

Manufacturers may be tempted to implement layoffs as an easy cost-saving measure. But any layoffs should be considered carefully and executed correctly. We recommend that employers adopt a three-pronged approach whereby employee terminations are conducted: (1) for the right reason, (2) in the right way, and (3) with the right compensation.

For the Right Reason

Employers must have just cause to terminate employees. The Supreme Court of Thailand has held that the following scenarios constituted proper grounds for laying off employees.

  • The company suffered consistent losses for a prolonged period of time.
  • The company needed to reorganize its business due to a significant economic crisis.
  • A decline in purchase orders seriously affected the company’s performance.

The court, however, possesses the discretion to assess the facts and to determine whether the particular employment termination was unfair. A court could hold, for example, that while the flooding in Thailand was widespread, it was temporary. As such, business losses due to the flooding are also temporary.

In the Right Way

If the employer decides to terminate employees, the employer must ensure that the process for selecting which employees will be laid off is transparent and fair. If the selection process is not fair or transparent, the Supreme Court may determine that the termination of a particular employee was unfair, even though there may be an underlying justifiable reason for the termination.

Employers of union members should also consider the terms of any collective bargaining agreement (CBA). If the CBA specifies a process or method for layoffs, the employer must take care to follow this process.

In addition, even though there is no legal requirement to inform the labor officer before terminating employees, it may be worth doing so as a courtesy. This is especially true where there is likely to be a backlash by employees or where the labor union is particularly strong, in order to ensure that the labor officer is fully apprised of the matter and can deal with any complaints or demands.

In addition, the employer should try to minimize the damage to the employees by issuing an announcement regarding pending layoffs in advance, to enable employees to prepare themselves for possible unemployment in the event that they are selected. For example, employers may wish to consider providing training for alternative careers or job fairs in cooperation with companies that seek to increase their workforce.

With the Right Compensation

On termination, sums payable by the employer under Thai law may include: (1) statutory severance pay, (2) payment in lieu of advance notice, (3) accrued and unused annual leave, (4) other benefits as provided in the employer’s work rules, regulations, and the employment contract, and (5) compensation for unfair termination.

Under the Labour Protection Act, the employer is required to pay statutory severance pay, which varies from 30 days (one month’s wages) to 300 days (ten months’ wages), depending on the employee’s term of employment.

In general, if an employer wishes to lay off an employee, the employer must give advance written notice at or before the date of any payment of wages in order to take effect on the next payment date. If advance notice is not given, the employer must pay remuneration in lieu of advance notice.

The employer must pay the employee is respect of any accrued annual leave for previous years and annual leave for the year of termination on a pro rata basis. Further, the employer is required to compensate the employee in accordance with the employer’s work rules or regulations (if any) and the employment contract.

Finally, if the employer is not justified in terminating the employee, the employer must pay compensation for unfair termination. The amount of compensation depends on the length of service of the employee, his or her wages, and other factors. Employers may wish to consider this principle when providing ex gratia (or voluntary) payments to departing employees.

In sum, laying off employees as a business preservation measure must be undertaken carefully and with the assistance of qualified legal counsel. If layoffs are not executed for the right reason, in the right way, and with the right compensation, managers may be setting their company up for numerous unfair termination lawsuits. Indeed, a flood of litigation may damage a business more than the flood itself.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
July 30, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved a draft ministerial regulation introducing significant changes to the calculation of old-age pension and old-age gratuity benefits under the Social Security Fund. The reform would replace the current pension calculation method with a career average revalued earnings (CARE) model designed to better reflect an individual’s lifetime contributions while supporting the long-term financial sustainability of the Social Security Fund. The changes are also intended to improve fairness and align Thailand’s pension framework with international practices. Key proposed changes under the draft ministerial regulation are outlined below. CARE-Based Formula for Old-Age Pension Calculations Currently, old-age pensions are calculated based on the insured person’s average salary over the preceding 60 months. The proposed regulation would replace this approach with the CARE model, under which pension benefits will be calculated based on earnings throughout an individual’s entire working life. Historical earnings will be revalued to reflect their present value before the pension benefit is calculated. According to the Ministry of Labor, this change is intended to better align pension benefits with an individual’s lifetime contribution history and provide a fairer basis for calculating benefits. Pension Accrual Rate for Contributions Exceeding 180 Months Under the current rules, insured persons who contribute for more than 180 months receive an additional pension accrual of 1.5% for each completed 12-month contribution period, with any remaining months disregarded. The proposed regulation would instead calculate the additional accrual on a monthly basis at a rate of 0.125% of actual monthly contributions; this aims to make pension benefits more accurately reflect the actual duration of each individual’s contribution history. Transitional Protections for Insured Persons The draft regulation includes transitional protections for both existing pension recipients and those who will become eligible within five years of the CARE model taking effect. For existing recipients, the following protections
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under