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

Subscribe to Updates
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 Professionals

Practices

Employment

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
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
Read More