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

October 4, 2013

Important Considerations for Employment Contracts under Thai Law

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Under Thai law, there are no requirements that employment contracts be made in writing. For some employers, this may create the perception that they can simply reach a cursory agreement with an employee on a few basic issues, such as job role and salary, and work out any other issues as they arise. In reality, this could not be further from the truth.

It is strongly advised that employers and employees have written contracts to clearly specify the terms and conditions of employment. Later, if any dispute arises, the parties can refer to a written contract to help determine the actual agreed-upon provisions.

In Thailand, employment contracts can be broadly categorized into two main types: fixed-term and open-ended. Accordingly, it is important to be aware of the type of contract being offered or entered into, as the rights and legal ramifications associated with each differ immensely.

Fixed-Term Employment Contracts

With provisions that specify the start and end dates of employment, this type of contract will end when the agreed period of employment expires, without the need for advance notice of termination. The contract cannot be terminated prior to the expiration of the agreed period, unless there is termination with cause.

The Supreme Court has ruled that fixed-term contracts must not contain any provisions that purport to allow an employer or an employee to terminate it prior to the expiration of the agreed period, or to extend the term. If it contains such provisions, it will lose its status as a fixed-term contract.

By way of an example, if a contract contains the provision that “the employment shall be for a period of 12 months, but either party may terminate the employment contract by giving the other party two months’ advance notice,” then it would not be effective as a fixed-term contract.

Another important consideration is the parties’ performance. Even if a fixed-term contract is in place, if the employee continues working and the employer continues paying wages after the expiration of the agreed period of employment, then the fixed-term contract would effectively convert into an open-ended contract.

There is no requirement to give advance notice of termination for fixed-term contracts. In practice, however, it is still advisable for employers to inform their employees, preferably in writing, that in accordance with the contract, the employment will expire at the end of the agreed period. This will help to ensure that everyone is on the same page.

Open-Ended Employment Contracts

Such contracts will only specify the commencement date of employment but not the end. An employee may resign or an employer may terminate the contract at any time, subject to the contract, their rights and obligations under law, and the employer’s Work Rules and Regulations.

For open-ended contracts, advance notice of termination is required, unless there is termination with cause and/or unless the employer is not required to provide advance notice of termination by law.

Necessary Provisions in Employment Contracts

To adequately safeguard the basic rights of both the employer and employee, employment contracts should always contain the following provisions:

  • Date the contract was made;
  • Names of parties to the contract;
  • Commencement date of employment;
  • Expiry date (for fixed-term contracts);
  • Probationary period;
  • Duties and responsibilities of the employee;
  • Wages, benefits and welfare;
  • Security deposit/guarantee (if applicable);
  • Working days, hours and holidays;
  • Position and right to change position;
  • Workplace address/location;
  • Non-competition and non-solicitation;
  • Confidentiality/non-disclosure;
  • Intellectual property;
  • Reference to Work Rules and Regulations; and
  • Termination of employment.

Language Requirements for Written Contracts

One of the most frequent questions clients ask is whether it is mandatory for contracts to be written in the Thai language. It is not.

However, if an employee is Thai and cannot understand English well enough to fully comprehend the terms of the contract, then it is strongly advisable to have the contract written in Thai or to have bilingual provisions. This way, both parties can understand the terms, and it guards against employees raising the issue that they misunderstood the terms in English.

Fair Contract Terms

Although an employer and employee are generally free to negotiate and agree to the terms and conditions of a contract, such terms and conditions must be fair.

If any terms or conditions result in the employer having excessive advantage over an employee, the court would be empowered to modify them as it deems fair and appropriate. Therefore, employers need to take great care in crafting their contracts to ensure legal compliance.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 16, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Yangon has contributed the Myanmar 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 Myanmar chapter was prepared by Kyaw Min Tun, an associate in the firm’s Myanmar office. 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 Myanmar chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Laos, 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 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