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 10, 2022

Cannabis and Human Resources Considerations in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s recent removal of cannabis from the list of narcotics represents a significant development for the country, and it has some human resources teams wondering whether they should prepare certain measures in order to prevent detrimental incidents from happening in their organizations.

For example, some employees could still be under the influence of cannabis because they used it before coming to work. In the past, this was rarely a consideration as cannabis was clearly banned. Using cannabis or possessing cannabis inside the employer’s premises subjected employees to criminal liability including imprisonment and fines.

However, now that the government has removed cannabis from the narcotics list under the Narcotics Act, such incidents are more likely to occur. This likelihood has led to concern among many employers about how they can prevent or handle these incidents.

An employer does have the right to prohibit any employee from bringing cannabis inside its premises, as it is the property of the employer. The employer has the management right to do this, particularly as an employee’s use of cannabis may very well disturb other employees. But if the employer would like to set penalties for breaching the prohibition, the picture is more complicated.

Employers’ Work Rules

Under the Labour Protection Act (LPA), an employer who has at least 10 employees must have Thai-language work rules. These work rules must include the following items:

  • Specification of working days, regular working hours, and rest periods;
  • Holidays and rules for taking holidays;
  • Rules concerning overtime work and work on holidays;
  • Arrangements for payment of wages (i.e., schedule and location);
  • Overtime pay, holiday pay, and holiday overtime pay;
  • Leave and rules for taking leave;
  • Discipline and disciplinary actions;
  • Submission of grievances; and
  • Termination of employment, severance pay and special severance pay.

To issue or amend work rules (e.g., to introduce cannabis-related rules), employers must:

  • Announce the implementation of work rules within 15 days of the employer having 10 or more employees, or of the date the work rules were amended;
  • Keep work rules and any amendments to them on the premises at all times; and
  • Openly post work rules or amendments at the employees’ workplace. Employers may also make the work rules or amendments available electronically.

Employers used to be required to send a copy of the work rules or amendments to the director general of the Labour Protection Office (or a designee), but the LPA provision regarding this was revised in 2017 to eliminate this requirement.

However, greater input is required for changes to work rules that would impact employees’ employment conditions. Under the Labour Relations Act (LRA), employers may not unilaterally change the conditions of employment.

The term “conditions of employment” is a broad concept under Thai law, and includes everything from the obvious (wages, welfare, working days, hours, etc.) to less obvious items such as rules about submission of employee complaints, termination of employment, disciplinary measures, amendment of the work rules, and other conditions in the workplace that have become obligatory by contract or practice. For example, the criteria underlying a variable bonus could be considered a condition of employment, and these could be difficult to modify if the employer has not expressly reserved that right in writing. Similarly, certain welfare benefits provided to employees, such as a shuttle service, can become conditions of employment.

Any employer that would like to change its work rules in a way that impacts the employment conditions must either follow the relevant LRA procedure by submitting a labor demand to the employees or seek consent from the employees. However, if the work rules contain clauses in which the employer reserves the right to change the work rules in the future, then the employer may change the work rules that do not impact the employees’ conditions of employment. For example, if the work rules state the number of staff in each department, the employer can change these numbers so long as the change does not impact the benefits of the employment conditions.

Therefore, as mentioned above an employer may prohibit cannabis from the premises, but if the employer also intends to state that any employee bringing cannabis inside the premises will be terminated (or face other penalties), the announcement would be considered to have an impact on the employment conditions. As discussed above, this cannot be done unilaterally. Therefore, the employer must proceed with the relevant LRA procedure by submitting a labor demand to the employees or seek consent from the employees.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Employment

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 1, 2026
Obtaining marketing authorization is a fundamental requirement for bringing pharmaceutical products to the Thai market. Companies must navigate the Thai Food and Drug Administration’s registration procedures while also complying with post-approval pharmacovigilance obligations, licensing requirements for manufacturing and importation, data protection rules, and other regulatory requirements. This guide provides an overview of Thailand’s regulatory framework for pharmaceutical marketing authorization, including available registration pathways, review timelines, application fees, postmarketing surveillance obligations, licensing requirements, exemptions, data exclusivity, freedom of information, and parallel import considerations. It is intended as a practical reference for pharmaceutical companies, regulatory affairs professionals, and others involved in bringing medicinal products to the Thai market. Download the guide below for a concise overview of the current requirements and procedures governing pharmaceutical marketing authorization in Thailand.
Read More
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
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 19, 2026
For the first time, Thailand’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a consolidated list identifying all substances that have successfully passed its novel food safety evaluation process. The list is a step forward in regulatory transparency, but it also highlights a feature of the Thai regime that food companies often overlook: each approval is tied exclusively to the company that applied for it. A substance’s appearance on the list does not give other companies the green light to use it. This article examines the structure of Thailand’s novel food approval framework, the implications of applicant exclusivity, and the strategic choices it requires of food companies looking to bring novel ingredients to the Thai market. Thai FDA Food Safety Evaluation Framework Notification No. 376 of the Ministry of Public Health requires novel food substances to undergo a food safety assessment, with an exemption only for novel foods manufactured exclusively for export. The framework also encompasses “foods that do not qualify as novel foods” but which present characteristics warranting a safety evaluation, such as differing quality standards, increased serving sizes, or applications in specific food categories, where such changes affect consumption levels, nutritional value, or consumer safety. The recently published list of foods that passed the safety evaluation by the Thai FDA is structured by substance category and identifies the approved company (domestic manufacturer or importer), country of origin, substance name and trade name, approved purpose of use, and date of the Thai FDA’s approval notification certificate. A notable feature of Thailand’s novel food regime is that the approval result is tied exclusively to the company that submitted the application. Publication of the consolidated list does not constitute a general authorization to use the approved substances. The Thai FDA’s approval certificate specifies the approved conditions of use and the requirements
Read More