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

February 5, 2020

Fair Treatment of Employees under Thai Labor Law

Bangkok Post: Human Resources Watch

Labor disputes typically arise when one party—often the employee—feels unfairly treated, for reasons that may stretch far beyond the law, and consequently he or she will feel entitled to restitution. Thailand’s labor laws encompass several safeguards that help employers meet a standard of fairness when dealing with dissatisfied or aggrieved employees.

By upholding high moral standards and treating employees fairly, these practices will foster good morale, encourage productivity, and boost employee retention rates. Reviewing and understanding these rules is an important first step in providing a fair and enjoyable workplace for employees. Below is a summary of some of the issues that may give rise to resentment, misunderstanding, or other labor-related disputes.

Remuneration and benefits

Compensation is a fundamental issue that is responsible for inciting many labor disputes. At the very least, employers must always be aware of the latest minimum wage. In Thailand, the latest minimum wage levels took effect on January 1, 2020. The current minimum wage varies by province on a sliding scale ranging from THB 313 to THB 336 per day. Compared to the previous minimum wage, this represents an increase of THB 6 for nine provinces and THB 5 for the remaining provinces.

Employers should also be aware of various requirements and obligations when terminating employees without cause. One of these obligations is the disbursement of severance pay. Severance pay in Thailand is calculated based on the length of an outgoing employee’s service to the employer, and it is important to stay on top of the required rates, because these entitlements may change when the related laws are amended. For example, last year’s amendments to the Labor Protection Act (LPA) increased the amount of severance pay to 400 days’ wages for employees who have completed 20 years of service or more.

Leave and holidays

Employers should also be fully aware of all holiday and leave entitlements. As for public holidays, employers in Thailand must allow their employees to take at least 13 publicly recognized holidays, in addition to their weekly holiday entitlement of at least one day per week. Many employers choose to grant more than the minimum requirement of 13 public holidays, which can help boost workforce morale. Employers should also be aware that the government sometimes announces additional public holidays during the year, and when this occurs, each business owner must decide how to handle the additional holiday.

Employees are also entitled to other types of leave, such as sick leave for days on which they are actually sick, but are only entitled to paid sick leave for 30 working days per year. Other allowances are maternity leave of up to 98 days (45 paid), inclusive of holidays, for pre-natal examinations before the delivery and for giving birth; necessary business leave of at least three days per year with pay, and more.

IP ownership rules for employers and employees

Misunderstandings over the ownership of intellectual property (IP) generated by employees can also be a source of conflict, so this should be clearly delineated in employment agreements so that both parties understand their rights and obligations in compliance with relevant laws.

This ownership is addressed differently from one piece of Thai IP legislation to the next.

For copyrighted work, such as drawings, photographs, or computer software, the Copyright Act assigns ownership of the copyright to the employee who creates the work, unless the employer and employee have agreed otherwise in writing. However, when a company hires a third party to create a copyrightable work, the copyright belongs to the employer unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

For inventions and designs, this situation is reversed. The Patent Act gives the employer the right to patent an invention or design developed by an employee within the scope of his or her employment, unless the employment agreement itself (not a separate agreement) says otherwise. However, the employee is still entitled to be named as the inventor and to receive special remuneration if the employer benefits from the invention.

For trade secrets and trademarks, the Trade Secret Act and the Trademark Act do not address ownership of trade secrets and trademarks created by employees. Thus, employers should make it clear with employees in writing that any trade secrets and trademarks created by employees during their employment belong to employers.

Unfair labor practices

Thailand’s Labor Relations Act also defines specific “unfair labor practices” that violate employees’ right to participate in unions. The term on its own may sometimes alarm employers, but it is also misunderstood. Unfair labor practices are actually defined in fairly narrow terms, encompassing three general categories of conduct: (1) retaliation (e.g., termination for labor union involvement), (2) wrongful pressure (e.g., forcing an employee to resign for union activity), and (3) termination while employees are under collective bargaining agreements, except in certain cases of egregious misconduct or extenuating circumstances.

Unfair labor practices should be reported to the Labor Relations Committee within 60 days of the violation. If the committee finds that an unfair labor practice occurred, it may order reinstatement. This can be appealed to the labor court, which might revoke the committee’s order or require compensation instead of reinstatement.

Designing the right employment policies and procedures

Understanding the standards set out by Thai labor law will enable responsible employers to formulate suitable employment policies for their specific situation. Companies in Thailand will usually provide some combination of policies and procedures that serve to meet the requirements, with some going beyond the minimum standards set out by law. Finding the correct balance can help to keep a company’s workforce satisfied and avoid the penalties and tension that may be aggravated by feelings of unfair treatment in the workplace.

 

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 INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.