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​ 

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.
Read More
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.
Read More
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
Read More
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.
Read More