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

May 14, 2020

Changing Employment Conditions during the COVID-19 Situation

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post: Human Resources Watch

The COVID-19 crisis continues to have a serious impact on global economic conditions, and many employers are feeling the severe economic effects here in Thailand. In light of this situation, employers are making efforts to ensure that their businesses survive the crisis, often looking to cost reduction measures such as reducing employees’ wages and benefits in accordance with labour laws. In general, Thai labour laws permit employers to reduce employee wages and benefits either by negotiating with employees and receiving their consent for the reductions, or by carrying out the labour relations processes described below.

Under Thailand’s Labour Relations Act (LRA), the definition of “employment conditions” includes general working conditions, working days and times, wages, welfare, conditions for termination of employment, and other benefits received by employers or employees relating to their employment or work. Any employer who would like to change these employment conditions, such as by reducing wages or benefits, must comply with the LRA.

In accordance with the LRA, employers are entitled to submit a written labour demand to employees (or a labour union, if applicable) in order to change an employment condition. Similarly, employees are entitled to submit a written demand to their employer to change an employment condition if the demand is submitted jointly by at least 15 percent of the total number of employees, or if the demand is submitted by a labour union that has a membership of at least one-fifth of the total number of employees.

After the demand has been submitted by either the employer or the employees, the parties must begin negotiations within three days.

It is important for employers to note that, once formal labour demands have been made to the other party, the employer is temporarily barred from terminating or transferring the employees, employee representatives, committee members, members of the labour union, or members of the labour federation committee. The only exceptions that allow termination of one or more of those parties are when they commit one of the following acts:

  • Acting dishonestly or intentionally committing a criminal offence against the employer;
  • Intentionally causing damage to the employer;
  • Violating the employer’s work rules, regulations or lawful orders, after the employer has already given a written warning to the employee (for matters not deemed serious); or
  • Neglecting their duties for a period of three consecutive workdays without reasonable cause.

This prohibition remains in force throughout the course of negotiations and settlement, or arbitration of the labour dispute should one arise.

If the parties are able to settle, they must enter into a written agreement signed by their representatives. Within three days from signing the agreement, the employer must display the agreement at the workplace for a period of at least 30 days. The employer must also register the agreement with the Ministry of Labour within 15 days from the date of signing.

If the parties do not settle after negotiations, or if they fail to negotiate at all, the labour demand is designated a “labour dispute.” In this situation, the party who submitted the labour demand must give written notice to a mediator within 24 hours after the lapse of the three-day period or the failure of the negotiations. The mediator is then obliged to resolve the dispute within five days. If a settlement is reached, the employer must proceed with the same notice requirements as stated above. If the parties are unable to reach a settlement, the labour dispute becomes an “unsettled labour dispute.”

The parties then have the legal right to either appoint one or more labour arbitrators to resolve the dispute by binding arbitration (if agreed upon by both parties), the employer can order an employee lockout, or the employees can go on formal strike. If the employees plan to proceed with a strike, they must give written notice to the labour dispute mediator, and to the employer, at least 24 hours prior to the strike commencing. In the present situation, parties should note that if the government issues any relevant regulations under the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation to prevent the COVID-19 outbreak, both parties must also comply with those measures.

If the employees follow all legal procedures prior to executing a strike, they will be protected under Thai labour law. For example, if the employer then terminates the employees for submitting the labour demand, the employees can lodge a complaint to the Labour Relation Committee (LRC). The complaint will allege that the employer committed an unfair labour practice and will ask the LRC to order the employer to reinstate the employees at the same position, wages, and benefits that they had before termination. If the LRC agrees that the employer committed an unfair labour practice, the court may order the reinstatement. If the employer disagrees with the LRC’s order, they are entitled to challenge the order by submitting a petition to the Central Labour Court to revoke the LRC’s order. If the employer fails to comply with the LRC’s order by the deadline, and fails to submit a petition to the labour court in order to revoke the LRC’s order, the employer and its directors will face criminal penalties, such as imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to THB 10,000, or both.

Although this process gives the employer one method of changing employment conditions, this article shows that it is not always a simple process. If negotiations go well and consent is forthcoming, labour demands can be an effective way of mitigating the effects of the COVID-19 crisis on some businesses. However, if the demand becomes a dispute, employers can find themselves in difficulty, and must be aware of the risk of criminal penalties if they fail to comply with any legal requirements or take disciplinary action against the employees during the dispute period.

 

This article was originally published in the Bangkok Post and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. The original story can be viewed on the Bangkok Post website.

Related Professionals

Practices

Employment

Location

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
Read More
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].
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More