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​ 

June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
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