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

August 6, 2018

Cambodia Labor Law Amendment Mandates Seniority Payment and Clarifies Damages for Early Termination

On July 11, 2018, Cambodia passed an amendment to the Labor Law that eliminates “indemnity for dismissal”—a local legal concept equivalent to a severance payment—for undetermined duration contracts (i.e., employment contracts without a fixed expiration date), and replaces it with an ongoing requirement for employers to pay employees a new “seniority payment.” These amendments affect undetermined duration contracts, and may also affect fixed-term contracts (i.e., employment contracts with a fixed expiration date).

Prior to the amendment, an employer was only required to pay indemnity for dismissal to an employee with an undetermined duration contract when the employer unilaterally terminated that employee for any reason other than that employee’s serious misconduct. Similar to the severance provisions of most other jurisdictions, this indemnity for dismissal was only paid at the end of the employment relationship and was based on length of employment.

After the amendment, an employer is no longer required to pay an indemnity for dismissal. However, an employer must instead pay employees a seniority payment every six months. On an annual basis, the total amount of the seniority payment is equal to 15 days of an employee’s wages and other fringe benefits, such as commissions and gratuities. As this seniority payment must be paid every six months, each installment of the seniority payment is half of the above amount.

If an employee with an undetermined duration contract is terminated for any reason other than the their 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. The amendment is silent as to whether an employee hired under a fixed term contract would be entitled to this seniority payment.

The amendment follows the existing formula under the Labor Law for calculating the daily wage of an employee for indemnity payments. The daily wage is calculated based on all wages and fringe benefits, including commissions and bonuses, that an employee received within the past 12 months of service. That said, ambiguities remain as to the exact formula for determining the daily wage as no formula is provided.

In addition to matters related to the seniority payment, the amendment also addresses damages for early termination of an employment contract. First, the amendment addresses an earlier ambiguity in the Labor Law by clarifying that if a company closes down and terminates its employees it will not be required to pay its employees any damages or compensation in lieu of prior notice under the Labor Law. Second, the amendment states that if an employee is entitled to damages, the employee can request a lump sum payment that is equal to all previous seniority payments received, plus any future seniority payments to be received under the employee’s contract, in lieu of proving the actual amount of damages. This revision is significantly pro-employee, as the Labor Law previously capped damages at six months of wages and fringe benefits.

The amendment states that the Ministry of Labor and Vocational Training will issue further additional regulations to address ambiguities in the applicable law and to more specifically clarify the implementation of the seniority payment.

Ambiguities under the new amendment that are yet to be resolved include: 

  1. whether an employee under a fixed-term contract is entitled to receive a seniority payment;
  2. whether an employee hired before this amendment is entitled to a seniority bonus for time employed before the enactment of this amendment;
  3. whether an employer can pay all employees a seniority payment at the same time or whether the employer must time the seniority payment to each employee’s specific start date; and
  4. the specific conditions under which an employer may terminate employees when closing down an enterprise without having to pay damages and compensation in lieu of prior notice. 

Regardless of any future clarification, it is clear that employers will be obliged to make the mandated seniority payments for any employees hired after the implementation of this amendment, and all companies with employees in Cambodia would be prudent to take note of this significant change in future staffing decisions.

Tilleke & Gibbins will be monitoring the developments of these new obligations. If you have any questions or require assistance assessing your labor obligations, please contact us at mailto:[email protected] or +855 23 964 210.  

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Vientiane have contributed the Laos chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Laos chapter was prepared by associates Naiyane Xaechao and Sayphin Singsouvong. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Laos chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Phnom Penh have contributed the Cambodia chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Cambodia chapter was authored by Jay Cohen, partner and director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office, and Chanvisal Lok, associate. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Cambodia chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
December 19, 2025
On December 12, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Labor published a ministerial regulation prescribing the minimum and maximum wages used as a base for calculating social security contributions. The regulation, which takes effect on January 1, 2026, sets a flat minimum base wage of THB 1,650 per month and a phased increase of the maximum base wage over the following six years, as outlined in the table below. Impact on Social Security Benefits Not only will monthly contributions increase as a result of the adjustment to the maximum wages used as a base for calculating social security contributions, but the maximum benefits available to insured persons will also be enhanced, as shown in the next table. Employer Obligations From January 1, 2026, employers must correctly withhold wages and remit social security contributions for both the employer’s and employees’ portions in compliance with the revised thresholds. Failure to comply may expose employers to penalties under the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990). Employers should ensure that payroll systems are updated as necessary to reflect these changes to the wage ceiling used for social security contribution calculations.