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

October 1, 2018

Cambodia – Implementing Guidelines Provide New Details on Labor Law Amendments

Cambodia’s Ministry of Labor and Vocational Training (MLVT) has introduced two new Prakas (implementing guidelines), one of which seeks to clarify recent amendments to the country’s Labor Law pertaining to seniority payments, and the other establishes a new requirement to make salary payments twice per month. Below we set out full details of the changes.

Prakas No. 443 on Seniority Payments

On September 21, 2018, the MLVT issued Prakas No. 443 on Seniority Payments, which provides implementing guidelines for the recent amendment to the Labor Law. To recap, the amendment to the Labor Law eliminated the “indemnity for dismissal” on termination of undetermined duration contracts and replaced it with an ongoing requirement for employers to pay a new “seniority payment.” Please refer to our client alert dated August 6, 2018, for more information on the amendment to the Labor Law.

The new Prakas No. 443 provides the following implementing guidelines:

  1. Applicability of Seniority Payments to Employees with Undetermined Duration Contracts and Fixed-Term Contracts

Seniority payments only apply to an employee with an undetermined duration contract. An employee with a fixed-term contract is not entitled to a seniority payment, but is entitled to a severance payment at the end of the employee’s contract pursuant to Article 73 of the Labor Law. Article 73 provides that the severance payments must be in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement, if any, and must be at least 5 percent of all wages that the employee received during his/her employment period.

  1. Timing and Amount of Seniority Payments

As mentioned in our previous alert, an employee is entitled to an annual seniority payment of 15 days of wages and other fringe benefits.

Starting in 2019, an employer must pay each annual seniority payment in two installments, with half of the seniority payment being paid in June and the remaining half being paid in December of each year.

For a new employee, an employee is entitled to a full installment of the seniority payment (being equal to 7.5 days of wages and benefits) if the employee worked for at least one month in the applicable period (being from January to June, or July to December).

Lastly, as stated in the amendment to the Labor Law, if an employee is terminated for any reason other than the employee’s own serious misconduct, and at least one month has passed since the last seniority payment without the subsequent seniority payment being paid, then the employee is entitled to a seniority payment equal to seven days of wages and fringe benefits.

  1. Back Payments for Seniority Incurred Before 2019

An employee is entitled to seniority payments for each year worked with an existing employer for time worked before 2019 (i.e., seniority back payments). The seniority back payments equal 15 days of wages and fringe benefits for each year worked (however, there is some ambiguity in the drafting of the Prakas, which may lead to an interpretation that employees in the textile, garment, and footwear industries are entitled to a seniority back  payment based on 30 days, as opposed to 15 days).

These seniority back payments are subject to a payment cap that equals six months of the employee’s average actual salary. For an employee who worked for less than a full year or for a partial portion of a year, an employee is entitled to a full installment of the seniority payment (being equal to 7.5 days of wages and benefits) if the employee worked for at least one month in the applicable period (being from January to June, or July to December).

Back payments of the seniority payment will be paid in annual installments starting from 2019 as follows:

  • For workers in the textile, garment and footwear industries, they will be entitled to have settled 30 days of seniority back payments per year; and
  • For workers in all other industries, they will be entitled to have settled 15 days of seniority back payments per year.

Seniority back payments must be paid in the same months as the ongoing seniority payments with half of the seniority back payment being paid in June and the remaining half being paid in December.

An employee is entitled to both the seniority back payment and the ongoing seniority payment.

By way of example, if an employee has worked for a bank for five years before 2019, the employee will be entitled to 75 days of seniority back payments (5 years x 15 days). In addition, the employee will also be entitled to the ongoing seniority payment from 2019 onwards. Therefore, for the first five years, the employer will be obliged to pay the employee a seniority back payment of 15 days and an ongoing seniority payment of 15 days (for a total back and ongoing seniority payment of 30 days) each year. Half of the payment will be made in June and the remaining half will be paid in December. Once the employer has cleared the seniority back payments, the employer will only be obliged to pay the employee the ongoing seniority payment of 15 days per year.

Likewise, if an employee has worked for a garment factory for six years before 2019, the employee will be entitled to 90 days of seniority back payments (6 years x 15 days). In addition, the employee will also be entitled to the ongoing seniority payment from 2019 onwards. Therefore, for the first three years, the employer will be obliged to pay the employee a seniority back payment of 30 days and an ongoing seniority payment of 15 days (for a total back and ongoing seniority payment of 45 days) each year. Half of the payment will be made in June and the remaining half will be paid in December. Once the employer has cleared the seniority back payments, the employer will only be obliged to pay the employee the ongoing seniority payment of 15 days per year.

If an employee resigns, the employee is not entitled to any seniority back payments that remain unpaid.

  1. Remaining Ambiguities

While Prakas No. 443 has addressed many ambiguities in the Labor Law, certain ambiguities remain in the Prakas, including: 

  • whether an employee who is terminated on or after January 1, 2019, is entitled to any unpaid seniority back payments;
  • the exact formula for calculating a seniority back payment, in particular whether the seniority back payment is based current or past wages; 
  • the exact formula for calculating the payment cap of six months of the employee’s salary, in particular how to calculate the average actual salary.

We hope the MLVT will further address these issues before employers have an obligation to make seniority back payments in June 2019.

Prakas No. 442 on Payment of Wages

Under Prakas No. 442 on the Payment of Wages, all employers are required to pay salaries to all employees twice per month starting from January 2019. The first half of the salary payment must be made in the second week of the month, and the second half of the salary payment must be made in the fourth week of the month. Any remaining amounts and other benefits owed to employees (such as overtime) should be paid at the time of the second half of the salary payment.
 

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 3, 2023
Most employers know that terminating employees for poor job performance is not easy. But it is actually legally possible—if employers have the right approach and take specific precautionary measures. However, failing to take these precautions can mean that an employer is either stuck with an incompetent employee or on the losing end of a lawsuit for unfair termination. This article will lay out some essential considerations for employers in Thailand regarding termination of employment for poor performance. First, understand that “poor work performance” is a lack of performance or ability, or an inability to work with other employees. It does not constitute a violation of work rules or regulations. In some cases, however, an employee’s failure to act in accordance with lawful instructions or commands of the employer, resulting in poor work performance, could also be considered a violation of work rules or regulations. This may be the case if the work rules or regulations clearly state that an employee must strictly comply with the employer’s instructions or commands. Second, an employer can, in fact, terminate an employee due to poor work performance. For example, this may be possible in the following scenarios: Records show that an employee’s work performance has fallen below the employer’s required standards, and the employee has not tried to improve his or her work performance for three consecutive years. In addition, it does not appear that the employer was biased when giving ratings or scores for the employee’s work performance. The job description of the employee includes coordination with employees in other departments, but the employee has not been able to do so. Therefore, the employee was reassigned to a new job function, but the employee still did not improve. This suggests that the employee has a lack of interpersonal skills and is not
March 23, 2023
On March 19, 2023, Thailand’s new work-from-home (WFH) legislation amending the Labour Protection Act (No. 8) B.E. 2566 (2023) was published in the Government Gazette. It will come into effect on April 18, 2023. The amendment aims to enhance employee protections to accord with current global standards, provide alternative working arrangements for employers and employees, increase workforce efficiency, and strengthen employees’ job security and a better quality of life. As we detailed previously, the new WFH legislation allows employers and employees to reach agreements that permit employees to work remotely. Since there are no accompanying criminal punishments relating to this new provision, and the legislation incorporates the term “may agree,” it appears that this WFH provision is not mandatory but is primarily intended to facilitate and encourage remote working agreements between employers and employees. For more details on the WFH legislation, or on any aspect of employment law in Thailand, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
February 24, 2023
Many companies have moved to Southeast Asia to benefit from the advantages of this vibrant and diverse market. The region is already a manufacturing hub for a multitude of industries—computer and automotive products in Thailand, textiles in Cambodia, and footwear and electrical goods in Vietnam, to name a few—and an increasing number of companies worldwide are reconfiguring their supply chains to include regional suppliers. A key challenge is keeping up to date with employment law trends in these jurisdictions to ensure compliance with local regulations—and avoid costly, time-consuming business interruption. Here we outline trends and recent regulatory developments in Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam, and consider what they mean for employers. Cambodia The Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training (MLVT) is likely to pursue a more proactive enforcement strategy in 2023. Last May, the MLVT announced companies would be required to submit a twice yearly self-declaration on labour compliance through a new online system. The self-declaration form requires companies to confirm and upload evidence of compliance, and the MLVT online system—through which the ministry can easily determine if a company is compliant –generates a report that lists all fines. Companies should comply with the self-declaration requirement and carefully review the form to understand what fines will apply for non-compliance. On 1 October 2022, regulations relating to the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) pension system came into effect, and employers and employees began making NSSF pension contributions. Over the next five years, total compulsory pension contributions will amount to 4% of an employee’s wage, half of which is paid by the employer and half deducted from the employee’s salary. The contribution wage is capped at KHR 1.2m (USD 300). Employers are currently required to pay a relatively small amount (KHR 24,000, or around USD 6). This will increase to 10.75% over
January 19, 2023
The Thai parliament has passed the so-called Work from Home Bill—formally known as Labour Protection Act (No. 8) B.E. 2566 (2023)—which amends the country’s Labour Protection Act (LPA) to reflect current circumstances. The accompanying legislative remark states that the proposed amendments to the LPA will provide additional options for work arrangements between employers and employees, upgrade the level of labor protection, increase work stability, and improve quality of life for employees in Thailand. The legislation adds a single section to the LPA providing that an employer and an employee “may agree in the employment contract” that the employee is allowed “to bring work . . . to perform at home or at the residence of the employee or anywhere that the employee can work remotely through information technology, if the nature of the work permits.” The provision further provides that employers are responsible for ensuring that remote work agreements are in writing, either physically or electronically, and may include the following details: Period of the agreement; Normal working hours, rest periods, and overtime work; Criteria for overtime work, holiday work, and various types of leave; Scope of work and control or supervision by the employer; and Responsibility for arranging supplies and equipment, including necessary costs relating to the work. The amended LPA gives employees who work from home the right to refuse contact from the employer or the supervisor beyond working hours. In addition, employers must treat remote employees equally to on-premise employees. The most notable question surrounding this legislation is whether employers must allow employees to work remotely. The phrase “may agree” suggests that employers do not have to agree to allow an employee to work remotely. Another important aspect of the amendment is that there is no criminal punishment attached to it, which suggests that the legislation