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

June 3, 2011

Corporate Relocation: An Employer Perspective

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Corporate relocation is common in Thailand. Despite their best intentions, however, many employers find themselves in violation of Thai labour laws during the relocation process. This article explains the steps an employer should follow to ensure that the relocation is in compliance with Thai law.

Under Section 120 of the Labour Protection Act, if the relocation of a company affects the ordinary course of an employee’s life or that of his or her family, an employer must adhere to a specific procedure:

  • First, the employer must notify the employees no less than 30 days prior to relocation.
  • Second, if an employee chooses not to relocate with the company, that employee must terminate his or her employment contract within 30 days of receipt of the employer’s relocation notification.
  • Third, the employer must pay special severance equal to the statutory severance under Section 118 of the Labour Protection Act, no later than seven days following the employee’s termination of his or her employment contract.

The amount of the employer’s statutory severance obligation depends on the length of an employee’s service to the company, as shown in the table.

Length of Service                                     Statutory Severance

120 days but less than 1 year                   30 days at last wage rate or last 30 days’ wages for work unit performed

1 year but less than 3 years                      90 days at last wage rate or last 90 days’ wages for work unit performed

3 years but less than 6 years                    180 days at last wage rate or last 180 days’ wages for work unit performed

6 years but less than 10 years                  240 days at last wage rate or last 240 days’ wages for work unit performed

10 or more years                                       300 days at last wage rate or last 300 days’ wages for work unit performed

In theory, the procedure for Section 120 seems straightforward, but in practice it can be fairly complex. The following scenarios illustrate this complexity and suggest avenues employers can take to ensure compliance.

If an employer fails to inform its employees 30 days in advance of relocation, the employer, in addition to paying special severance under Section 120, must also pay an additional amount in lieu of advanced notice. This amount is typically equal to around one month’s wages, but can be more in some cases.

If an employer fails to satisfy its special severance obligation, the employee can file a complaint with the Labour Welfare Committee within 30 days of the due date of payment.

It is important to note that the employee must first terminate his or her contract pursuant to Section 120 before the employer is required to pay special severance and before he or she may file a complaint with the Labour Welfare Committee.

If the committee finds that the employee is entitled to special severance, it will issue a written order to the employee within 60 days of receiving the complaint. After receiving the order, the employer must pay the special severance within 30 days. If the employer still fails to pay special severance, the employer could face criminal charges, with its officers or directors facing possible punishment of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding 100,000 baht, or both. If the committee finds that the employee is not entitled to special statutory severance, it must inform all parties in writing.

Within 30 days of receiving the committee’s order, either party may file an appeal with the Labour Court. If an appeal is filed, the employer must post a bond equal to the amount in dispute. If neither party appeals the committee’s order within the 30-day prescription period, the committee’s order is final.

Under Section 120, if an employer has two locations and moves its employees to a single location, the employer may not be not obligated to pay special severance to employees who do not wish to relocate if the move does not impose an undue burden. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that combining offices in Bangkok and a factory in Samut Prakan province does not constitute a “relocation” under Section 120. (Supreme Court Precedent Case No. 3398/2003)

In summary, an employer wishing to relocate must first notify its employees 30 days before the relocation takes place. Once those employees who decide not to follow the company to the new location have terminated their employment contracts, the employer must be prepared to make special severance payments to such employees. Finally, employers who decide to combine two premises may not have any severance obligation if they are not seen as “relocating” under Section 120 of the Labour Protection Act.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 25, 2025
In the Thailand contribution to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, four members of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok labor and employment team outline key aspects of dispute resolution in Thailand. Their analysis, part of Lexology Panoramic’s comparative guide covering jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the following areas: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The complete Thailand chapter can be downloaded below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
September 25, 2025
Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Phnom Penh have authored the Cambodia chapter of Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, the latest edition of Lexology Panoramic’s global guide to handling labor and employment disputes. The chapter provides practical insights on a wide range of dispute resolution issues, including: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The full Cambodia chapter is available for download below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as