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 12, 2017

Disciplinary Actions in Thailand: What Employers Need to Know

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

When an employee commits an offense against an employer or violates company work rules, the HR department usually plays a central role in advising management on how to proceed or take disciplinary action. However, sometimes HR may be unaware of, or may overlook, significant points that could impact a claim by the employee after the employer takes disciplinary action. This article will examine some common issues related to disciplinary actions that are often litigated in court.

The Labor Protection Act (LPA) states several grounds in section 119 (1)–(6) allowing an employer to terminate an employee without severance. A terminated employee may feel aggrieved and file a lawsuit for wrongful termination, and the court will always consider the grounds for employee termination on a case-by-case basis. But if an employer has justifiable grounds, the termination will generally be considered as fair.

However, the LPA and other Thai labor laws do not specify any processes governing the disciplinary procedures before termination. These procedures therefore depend on each company’s work rules, policies, and special agreements between employers and employees.

For example, a company’s work rules may state that an employer must appoint an investigation panel to investigate case facts, and may also stipulate a termination penalty when an employee commits a serious offense. In this case, the employer cannot skip the process contained in its work rules and is required to appoint an investigation panel as stated in the work rules before taking any action against the employee.

In addition, if the company’s work rules contain provisions for punishing an employee who commits an offense, the employer cannot take more serious disciplinary action against the employee than the penalty stated in the work rules. If, for example, the work rules list three successive steps for punishing an employee who commits an offense, the employer cannot skip one of the steps and immediately impose the final penalty against the employee.

In this example, a company’s work rules may provide the following penalties for employee absenteeism:

  • First offense: Warning letter
  • Second offense: Second warning letter
  • Third offense: Termination without severance

If an employee is absent from work twice, the company can punish the employee using its first and second warning letters. The company cannot immediately terminate the employee without severance, even though section 119 (4) of the LPA states that an employer can terminate an employee who repeatedly violates the employer’s work rules, regulations, or orders which are legal and fair, where the employer has already given a written warning.

As Thai courts generally consider that if an employer’s work rules benefit employees more than the law, the court will tend to apply the work rules favorably toward the employee (Supreme Court Precedents 5679/1987 and 1159/1988).

If a company and its employees or a labor union have entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that requires certain procedures before termination of an employee, the company cannot skip those requirements. To illustrate, a CBA may state that if an employee commits a serious offense which carries a penalty of termination without severance, the company must appoint an investigation committee that includes a labor union representative to consider and determine the facts and penalty. If the company skips this process or fails to appoint an investigation committee with a union representative, and terminates the employee without severance, it would be considered unfair termination (Supreme Court Precedent 404/1987).

Another important consideration is that an employer cannot punish an employee twice for a single offense. For instance, a company’s work rules may state four penalties, such as a verbal warning, two successive warning letters, and finally, termination. The company may take disciplinary action against an employee who commits an offense by issuing a warning letter, but the company cannot later impose a second penalty, such as termination, on the employee based on the same offense.

If a company appoints a panel to investigate an offense, the panel should interview all concerned persons, including the employee accused of the offense, in order to give the employee a chance to defend themselves.

The investigation panel is also entitled to investigate and interview an employee who is a member of an employee committee under the Labor Relations Act. However, the employer must first request permission from the court prior to taking disciplinary action against an employee committee member. Otherwise, the employer or management involved in the matter could face criminal charges, which carry penalties of imprisonment not exceeding one month, or a fine not exceeding THB 1,000, or both.

These examples illustrate how failing to adhere to the law when it comes to disciplinary action can cause an employer to face criminal charges. This is a position that no employer wants to be in.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 28, 2026
On July 22, 2026, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 292/2026/ND-CP detailing the implementation of the Law on Foreign Trade Management (Decree 292). Decree 292 came into effect on September 5, 2026, replacing Decree No. 69/2018/NND-CP, and introduces several important changes to Vietnam’s foreign trade regime. Of particular relevance is the addition to the list of goods prohibited from importation of “products and goods extracted, produced, or manufactured wholly or partly through forced labor by enterprises, countries, or territories in accordance with relevant international treaties to which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a party.” This new prohibition introduces forced-labor considerations into Vietnam’s import compliance framework and may have practical implications for how businesses manage related risks across their operations and supply chains. Implementation of the New Prohibition According to Decree 292, the minister or head of the relevant ministerial-level agency is responsible for publishing the detailed list and corresponding harmonized system (HS) codes for each category of goods prohibited from export or import under its purview. Goods involving forced labor fall under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, as of the date of this article, no corresponding list has been published specifying the goods to which the forced-labor prohibition applies, leaving businesses without official guidance on how the prohibition will be applied or enforced in practice. Nevertheless, this absence does not suspend the prohibition’s application. As Decree 292 has already taken effect, goods involving forced labor remain subject to the general legal framework applicable to goods prohibited from importation. In particular, Decree 169/2026/ND-CP provides for administrative penalties for the importation or transportation of prohibited goods into Vietnam. Depending on the nature and circumstances of the violation, criminal liability may also arise under the Criminal Code. In practice, enforcement is likely to depend on the
Read More
September 23, 2026
Many multinational companies are familiar with the concept of “time off in lieu” (TOIL), under which employees receive compensatory time off instead of overtime pay for additional hours worked. While TOIL is common in many jurisdictions, employers in Thailand should be cautious, as Thai labor law does not expressly recognize TOIL as a substitute for statutory overtime-related compensation. Under the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA), employees who work overtime or perform work on holidays are generally entitled to statutory overtime, holiday, or holiday overtime compensation, including: Overtime Pay: 1.5 times the employee’s normal wage rate for work performed beyond normal working hours on a regular working day. Holiday Pay: 1 or 2 times the employee’s normal wage rate for work performed during normal working hours on a holiday, depending on category of employee. Holiday Overtime Pay: 3 times the employee’s normal wage rate for overtime work performed on a holiday. Importantly, the LPA does not contain any provision expressly permitting employers to substitute overtime-related compensation with compensatory leave, as such compensation is treated as a payment obligation rather than additional time off. Why TOIL Can Be Risky in Thailand Thai labor law is protective in nature, and statutory entitlements to overtime, holiday, and holiday overtime pay are generally regarded as minimum employee rights. As a result, these rights cannot be waived, even with the employee’s consent. Therefore, an employer who grants TOIL instead of paying statutory overtime-related compensation may still be exposed to claims for unpaid amounts, notwithstanding that compensatory leave has already been provided. Thai courts have affirmed this principle, holding that employers remain liable for statutory payments for work performed beyond normal working hours even where substitute time off has been granted. Are There Any Exceptions? Certain categories of employees are exempt from overtime-related compensation,
Read More
September 9, 2026
On August 25, 2026, Thailand’s cabinet approved in principle a draft amendment that would extend mandatory social security coverage to three categories of workers currently excluded from Thailand’s compulsory social security system. The amendment, proposed by the Ministry of Labour, would modify the Royal Decree Prescribing Businesses and Employees Excluded from the Social Security Act B.E. 2560 (2017). Newly Covered Workers The cabinet-approved proposal would remove the exclusions for the following three categories of employees, bringing them within Thailand’s mandatory social security system: Workers in seasonal cultivation (pho pluk), forestry (pa mai), and livestock (liang sat) businesses that do not employ workers year-round and whose operations do not include other types of business activities. Notably, fishery (pramong) workers were excluded from this amendment following objections raised at a Social Security Board meeting on April 30, 2025, because employers and employees in the fishery sector can already agree to opt into social security coverage under fishery labor laws. Domestic workers and other employees of individual employers where the work performed is not part of a business operation (e.g., housekeepers, gardeners, drivers). This group has actively demanded inclusion in the social security system. Workers employed in street-stall businesses operating fixed street stalls (kan kha phaeng loi). The rationale for including street-stall workers is that their employers have fixed, identifiable places of business that can be inspected. Accordingly, workers engaged in itinerant street hawking (kan kha re) remain excluded. The expanded coverage would apply to both Thai and foreign employees who possess valid identity documents and work permits, including migrant workers who have been granted special permission to work in Thailand. The Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990) does not restrict social security registration based on nationality, allowing these workers to register as insured persons under section 33. Employer Obligations and Employee
Read More
September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More