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​ 

June 17, 2026
Thailand’s new labeling requirements for medical devices, which include for the first time a unique device identification (UDI) requirement for software as a medical device (SaMD), take effect on June 20, 2026. The Notification of the Ministry of Public Health regarding Criteria, Methods, and Conditions on Labeling and Instructions for Use for Medical Devices 2025, which replaces a similar notification from 2020, was published in the Government Gazette on December 22, 2025. To ensure clarity, modernity, and patient safety, the regulation requires domestic manufacturers and importers to provide labels and instructions for use (IFU) that are clearly legible, complete, and free of false or misleading claims. It also permits IFU to be provided in electronic format, such as via QR codes, websites, or other digital channels—directly relevant to SaMD, where physical labels are impractical and electronic presentation is the natural medium. The notification distinguishes two categories for labeling language. Home-use medical devices (for lay users outside healthcare facilities) must have labels and IFU in Thai. Professional-use medical devices may display labels and documentation in either Thai or English. This distinction is significant for SaMD developers: software intended for clinical professionals may use English-language interfaces and IFU, while consumer-facing health applications must provide Thai-language content. Labeling and UDI Requirements Labels and IFU must include, at a minimum: Product name and intended purpose Quantity or volume Name and address of domestic manufacturer or importer Thai FDA approval number Lot, version, or serial number Manufacturing date and expiry date For SaMD, the version number requirement is particularly relevant. The regulation also mandates display of a UDI code for SaMD in risk category 2 (moderate-risk), category 3 (moderate- to high-risk), and category 4 (high-risk), according to Thailand’s medical device risk classification system (which complies with the ASEAN Medical Device Directive and the EU
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
June 5, 2026
On May 25, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Health issued Circular No. 16/2026/TT-BYT governing free-of-charge medicine support programs for medical establishments (Circular 16). Circular 16 will take effect on July 10, 2026, replacing Circular No. 31/2018/TT-BYT, which currently regulates the same subject matter. Circular 16 introduces several significant changes compared to the existing legal framework. Removal of Prior Approval Requirement Under the current regulations, free-of-charge medicine support programs are divided into two categories: (1) entirely free-of-charge provision of medicines for all types of drugs and (2) partially free-of-charge provision applicable only to brand-name drugs under patent protection or drugs whose generic products with identical active ingredients and dosage forms are available in Vietnam. Under the current regulations, partially free-of-charge programs are subject to mandatory registration with the competent authority, while entirely free-of-charge programs could be implemented without prior approval. A key reform under Circular 16 is that it stipulates only entirely free-of-charge medicine support programs applicable to all types of medicines, thereby eliminating the partially free-of-charge category. In addition, free-of-charge medicine support programs may be carried out solely based on a written agreement between the pharmaceutical company and the medical establishment, without any requirement for prior approval from competent authorities prior to implementation. Written Agreement Requirements Circular 16 requires the pharmaceutical company and medical establishment to enter into a written agreement in accordance with a prescribed template. This agreement must include the following compulsory information: Information on the supported medicines Form of support (entirely free-of-charge provision to patients) Quantity of medicines provided Target patient groups and applicable indications Duration of the program Rights and obligations of each party Transitional provisions on the protection of patients’ rights upon completion of the program The agreement may contain other contents as agreed by the parties, provided that these do not contradict applicable laws.