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

August 5, 2021

How Employers Can Temporarily Shut Down Their Businesses to Weather the COVID-19 Situation

Bangkok Post Human Resources Watch

With the latest wave of COVID-19 continuing to have a serious impact on Thailand, many businesses have been looking for ways to survive. Some have temporarily reduced employees’ wages, while others have resorted to a complete or partial halt to operations. In these unprecedented circumstances, it is vital that business owners understand the legal criteria and steps for implementing a temporary cessation of operations in Thailand, as outlined in this article.

Any business can apply for a temporary cessation of operations under section 75 of the Labor Protection Act (LPA) if there is a necessity and a significant cause, such as the business being unable to operate as usual, and if the necessity is not considered force majeure under Thai law. (If it is deemed force majeure, an employer may be able to withhold all wages—more on this below.)

If these criteria are met, the employer can choose whether to seek temporary cessation of operations on a whole or partial basis, depending on the actual situation and necessity. The employer then has to inform a labor inspection officer and the employees at least three business days in advance of the intended cessation of operations. Once this is done, operations may be halted, but the employer must pay employees at least 75 percent of their wages, calculated based on the rate on their latest working day, and these payments must continue throughout the entire cessation period.

“Necessity” and force majeure

Though the LPA does not indicate what qualifies as a “necessity” allowing an employer to call for a temporary cessation, past rulings from the Supreme Court provide some guidance on this issue. For instance, reduced purchase orders from customers and financial difficulties faced by the employer can amount to a situation of “necessity.” Additionally, the situation has to be significant and must seriously impact the employer’s business, but the situation must not be a result of the employer’s own failure to conduct business efficiently.

As mentioned above, force majeure events that prevent business operations may enable an employer to withhold all wages from employees. Force majeure essentially refers to damage from an unpreventable devastating event. The exact definition of force majeure under Thai law is “any event, the happening or pernicious results of which could not be prevented even though a person against whom it happened or threatened to happen were to take such appropriate care as might be expected from him in his situation and in such condition.” Earthquakes and tsunamis are examples of force majeure events. So, for example, the collapse of a factory due to a tsunami would justify the withholding of wages to the workers in the destroyed factory.

The Thai Supreme Court has ruled that the following events do not qualify as force majeure:

  • The flooding of a factory
  • A factory fire
  • A violent seasonal storm
  • A seasonal wildfire for which the party takes no preventive action

However, if the above incidents result in the shutdown of business operations, the employer could still apply for a temporary cessation of operations under LPA section 75.

In 2020, a regulation was enacted under the Social Security Act which also related to the definition of force majeure under section 75 of the LPA. The regulation defines force majeure as “hazards from dangerous communicable diseases that affect the public under relevant law relating to communicable diseases, causing insured employees (who are qualified under the Social Security Act) to be unable to work, or an employer to be unable to operate their business normally.” This regulation allows the Social Security Office (SSO) to compensate employees forced to cease working temporarily without wages from their employer. In order to get compensation, the employees must be insured and eligible to receive unemployment benefits.

The SSO compensation applies only if the circumstances above result from either of the following force majeure events related to the COVID-19 pandemic that force employees to stop working:

  • Quarantine or compliance with other COVID-19 preventive measures; or
  • Official orders to close business premises temporarily as part of COVID-19 control efforts.

Insured employees who are forced to stop working by either of these scenarios and do not receive wages from their employers during this period can receive compensation at the rate stated in the SSA and SSO regulations, but not for more than 90 days.

Implementing a temporary shutdown

The employer can choose whether to seek temporary cessation of operations wholly or partially, and can also fix the cessation period. The employer can designate separate cessation periods based on necessity.

If the employer and employees are bound by a collective bargaining agreement regarding temporary cessation of operations, the employer must abide by the agreement, or else the employees can claim violation of the collective bargaining agreement. If the business has a labor union, it is likely that the union will challenge the temporary cessation measures taken by the employer. Therefore, employers should act cautiously when considering such measures.

Consequently, if any business would like to apply for a partial or full temporary cessation of operations in order to survive or prevent the spread of COVID-19, the business should be aware of the criteria discussed above and carefully issue appropriate measures that fit the individual situation.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Vientiane have contributed the Laos chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Laos chapter was prepared by associates Naiyane Xaechao and Sayphin Singsouvong. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Laos chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Phnom Penh have contributed the Cambodia chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Cambodia chapter was authored by Jay Cohen, partner and director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office, and Chanvisal Lok, associate. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Cambodia chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
December 19, 2025
On December 12, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Labor published a ministerial regulation prescribing the minimum and maximum wages used as a base for calculating social security contributions. The regulation, which takes effect on January 1, 2026, sets a flat minimum base wage of THB 1,650 per month and a phased increase of the maximum base wage over the following six years, as outlined in the table below. Impact on Social Security Benefits Not only will monthly contributions increase as a result of the adjustment to the maximum wages used as a base for calculating social security contributions, but the maximum benefits available to insured persons will also be enhanced, as shown in the next table. Employer Obligations From January 1, 2026, employers must correctly withhold wages and remit social security contributions for both the employer’s and employees’ portions in compliance with the revised thresholds. Failure to comply may expose employers to penalties under the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990). Employers should ensure that payroll systems are updated as necessary to reflect these changes to the wage ceiling used for social security contribution calculations.