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​ 

March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the