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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

March 30, 2026
In response to an emerging crisis on food safety, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 46/2026/ND-CP (Decree 46) on January 26, 2026, and Resolution No. 66.13/2026/NQ-CP (Resolution 66.13) on January 27, 2026, setting out a number of substantive changes to the procedure and strict requirements for the declaration, registration, and importation of food products. Both instruments took effect upon issuance. However, shortly after they entered into force, food businesses encountered significant implementation challenges, particularly with respect to state inspection procedures at the customs clearance stage for imported products. In response, the government issued Resolution No. 09/2026/NQ-CP (Resolution 09) on February 4, 2026, temporarily suspending Decree 46 and Resolution 66.13 until a new effective date of April 16, 2026. Continued Suspension of Implementation of Decree 46 and Resolution 66.13 After considering feedback gathered by the Ministry of Health from food businesses and other stakeholders during the suspension period, the Vietnam Government Office issued a notice on March 20, 2026, agreeing to extend the suspension until the issuance of an amended Law on Food Safety and its guiding decree. Following this notice, on March 22, 2026, the Ministry of Health prepared a draft resolution to implement the notice and replace Resolution 09. Under the draft resolution, the effectiveness of Decree 46 and Resolution No. 66.13 would continue to be suspended until the amended Law on Food Safety takes effect, except for the provisions under Resolution 66.13 allowing flexibility in documents evidencing product efficacy, which would take effect on April 16, 2026, and remain effective until the Law on Food Safety is replaced (but not later than February 28, 2027). Accordingly, for products subject to the registration declaration procedure, such as health supplements, efficacy may be substantiated by either (i) scientific evidence supporting the declared function and effects of the product
March 20, 2026
Myanmar has introduced a comprehensive new regulatory framework for alcoholic beverages that will impose stricter controls on production, distribution, advertising, and sales. On March 7, 2026, the National Defence and Security Council issued a new Excise Law (NDSC Law No. 13/2026), repealing the Excise Act of 1917. The law, which has not yet entered into force, will take effect on a date to be specified in a separate notification—likely within this year. The new Excise Law establishes clearer definitions, introduces multiple categories of excise licenses and permits, and significantly expands prohibitions and compliance obligations for businesses operating in the alcohol sector. Many operational details will be clarified through implementing rules and notifications. Scope and Definitions The new law defines “excise” to cover alcoholic liquor and excisable articles. Alcoholic liquor is broadly defined as any liquid containing more than 0.5% ethyl alcohol, including beer, wine, toddy sap, fermented liquor, and any other liquid declared as alcohol by notification of the relevant ministry, excluding denatured alcohol. Alcoholic liquor is further categorized into country liquor, foreign liquor, and international‑standard domestically produced liquor. Excise Licensing The law also introduces a more detailed licensing regime. The following types of liquor excise licenses are available: Production Production of value-added products Bottling Distribution Sales Other excise‑related businesses designated by General Administrative Department (GAD) notification The GAD will prescribe the licensing fees, requirements, and conditions for each category through notifications issued with the approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The GAD may also, with the approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs, prescribe quantities and volumes of alcoholic beverages that may be possessed without a liquor license. No such prescribed quantities have yet been issued. Holders of excise licenses for manufacturing, production of value-added products, or bottling must obtain approval from the relevant government department or
March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The