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 7, 2018

Labor Disputes in Laos: Options for Dispute Resolution under New Decree

Subscribe to Updates

Lao P.D.R. has long been a high-potential destination for foreign investors due to its abundant natural resources and strategic location. As the number of legal entities increased, the number of labor disputes have also rose accordingly. In the past, companies sometimes faced issues over the uncertain legal framework for resolving labor disputes.

In February 2018, to further strengthen the legal framework for employment in Laos, the Lao government issued the Decree on Labor Dispute Resolution No. 76/GOL (the “Decree”), which serves as the implementing regulation for labor dispute resolution mechanisms that were previously mentioned in the Law on Labor No.43/NA dated December 24, 2013 (the “Labor Law”). The Decree will help locally established companies to anticipate and plan for labor issues, and exercise better control during labor disputes.

The Decree sets a clear regulatory framework for two types of labor disputes:

  • Disputes related to the implementation of the Laos Labor Law, work rules of the labor unit in each company, provisions in the company’s employment contract or collective labor agreement, or infringement of other regulations related to labor.
  • Disputes related to benefits, such as salary, working hours, or social welfare, among other issues.

Under the Decree, the four main domestic approaches for employers and employees seeking to resolve labor disputes are compromise, administrative remedy, resolution by the Committee for Labor Dispute Resolution, or decision by the Lao People’s Court. Dispute resolution of an international nature is also covered by the Decree and can be addressed by way of relevant agencies or international protocols ratified by Laos. Generally, each approach takes into consideration both individual and collective disputes, the latter being characterized by claims pertaining to the rights or benefits of more than half of the employees in a labor unit or a business group (a new term defined under the Decree as a collection of labor units).

Compromise

An employer and individual employee or group of employees may wish to resolve a labor dispute through consultation to reach a compromise. To initiate the consultation, a proposal regarding the dispute must be submitted by one party to the counterparty. Each party may appoint a representative to lead the discussions or propose a third party to act as a mediator.

A successful consultation will include in writing the results of the discussions, including how the dispute in question will be resolved, and the signatures of all parties involved. The Decree stipulates that a compromise to resolve a dispute between an employer and an individual employee should be reached within 15 days from the date on which one party receives a proposal from the counterparty.

An employer may also face a dispute on a larger scale, involving a representative, or a representative organization, such as a labor union, acting on behalf of more than half of the employees in a labor unit or business group. In such case, the representative may submit their proposal to the employer to conduct collective bargaining. Similarly, the employer or a representative can initiate collective bargaining with a particular labor unit or business group if it believes that the conduct of the unit or group has a negative impact on the company’s business activities.

A collective labor agreement will seal the collective bargaining. To be enforceable, the agreement must be signed by all parties involved, registered with the Lao Labor Administration Authority for examination, and registered with notary authorities to ensure full enforcement. According to the Decree, a compromise to resolve a dispute between an employer and a labor unit should be reached within 30 days from the date on which one party receives the counterparty’s proposal.

In the event that the parties cannot reach a satisfactory compromise, they are free to use another labor dispute resolution approach.

Administrative Remedy

Administrative remedies provide recourse to parties in many types of legal areas, including labor, intellectual property, banking and finance, insurance, and more. However, this type of remedy often lacks a detailed process to follow, with procedures shaped through practice with authorities rather than actual rules or regulations. The Decree therefore endeavors to provide a detailed framework for the use of administrative remedies in labor disputes.

The process for obtaining an administrative remedy is initiated when a complaint is filed with the relevant Labor Administration Authority, whether at the village, district, provincial, or ministry levels. Depending on the type of employee or number of employees involved, a labor dispute may originate at one level and be escalated to higher levels.

At each level, a mediator will be appointed by the relevant Labor Administration Authority to find a satisfactory solution within 15 days from the date of receipt of the written claims of both parties by authorities.

The four administration levels in which an administrative remedy can be filed are outlined in the table below.

*At the district, provincial, and national level, this recourse is also available if one of the parties does not appear at the request of the responsible official on two occasions, without providing a valid reason.

At each administration level, a mediator will be appointed to find a satisfactory solution to the labor dispute at hand. The mediator’s duties include examining and considering the administrative remedy request filed by the parties involved; keeping a record of the information exchanged by the parties; creating a labor dispute resolution plan and calling relevant parties to take part in the mediation process; conducting the mediation process; certifying and ensuring that the mediation process is fair, timely, and efficient; recording the agreement that was reached during the mediation process, reading the agreement to the parties, and obtaining signatures from the parties; reporting the results of the mediation process to the Labor Administration Authority; and passing on the dossier to the Lao People’s Court if the matter cannot be resolved through the administrative remedy.

Resolution by the Committee for Labor Dispute Resolution

The Decree establishes the Committee for Labor Dispute Resolution (CLDR), which is responsible for resolving labor disputes related to benefits. The CLDR is a tripartite organization, comprised of a representative from the Labor Administration Authority, who will serve as the chair, a representative of employers, who will serve as a vice chair, and a representative of employees, who will serve as a vice chair. The employer and employees directly involved in the dispute will not be part of the CLDR but will present the details of their dispute to the CLDR representatives.

The CLDR operates at two levels: a central committee whose members are appointed by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare and a provincial committee whose members are appointed by each province’s Department of Labor and Social Welfare.

The CLDR will be tasked with reviewing labor dispute claims, requesting necessary information or seeking participation from relevant parties, arriving at a resolution, and notifying representatives in the tripartite organization. A dispute that cannot be resolved by the provincial committee may be escalated to the central committee or brought before the Lao People’s Court at the request of one of the parties involved. It is also noteworthy that the CLDR is the one body responsible for handling issues that cannot be resolved by way of compromise during collective labor dispute.

Decision by the Lao People’s Court

If a labor dispute cannot be resolved through compromise, administrative remedy, or CLDR resolution, the matter can be brought before the Lao People’s Court as a final recourse. The court’s decision would be enforceable within 15 days after being issued and is considered final. During these 15 days, the employee has the right not to work, and the employer has the right not to allow the employee to work nor pay the employee wages.

If the employee does not agree with the decision of the Lao People’s Court and decides not to work, the employment contract will be considered to be cancelled, with the benefits from the termination of employment dependent on the provisions set out in the employment contact, the company’s internal work rules, or other agreements made with the employer.

Similarly, if the employer does not agree with the decision of the Lao People’s Court and decides to not accept an employee within their workplace, the employee’s employment contract will be considered cancelled, with the employer being obligated to pay the employee’s severance and other benefits defined in the employment contract, and the company’s internal work rules.

Working during a Pending Labor Dispute

The Decree dedicates a section to ongoing fulfilment of an employment contract during a pending dispute, stipulating that employees should continue working during an ongoing individual or collective dispute, unless the CLDR explicitly orders the employees to cease work during the pending dispute. An exception is if the employees notice that work safety conditions have not been met and have notified their employer about the issue previously. In such case, the employees may decide not to work and must report the issue to the Labor Administration Authority immediately.

It is important to note that the employer will be at fault if it decides to close its workplace to employees without receiving approval from the CLDR or the employees to do so. In such case, the employer will be liable for payment of the salary of the employees who were unable to work during the closing of the workplace.

However, if the employer notices that an employee or employees have behavior that may cause damage to the company’s business, the employer may decide to restrict or prohibit access to those specific employees after consulting with the employee representative or labor union. The employer must also immediately report the issue to the Labor Administration Authority.

The new Decree for resolving labor disputes in Laos provides a promising legal framework to address contentious employment issues for investors seeking to do business in the country.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
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
June 4, 2026
On May 19, 2026, the Cabinet of the Royal Thai Government approved, in principle, revisions to Thailand’s visa exemption scheme and visa on arrival (VOA) program, as proposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. The revisions represent a tightening of Thailand’s immigration framework and will affect a broad range of short-term visitors. Background On July 15, 2024, Thailand expanded its visa exemption scheme by increasing the permitted period of visa-exempt stay from 30 days to 60 days in order to promote tourism, support the country’s post-pandemic economic recovery, and facilitate international travel. Under this revised scheme, passport holders from 93 countries and territories (an increase from the previous 57 countries and territories) have been permitted to enter Thailand without a visa and remain in the country for up to 60 days per entry for purposes including tourism, business engagements, urgent work, and ad hoc assignments. In addition, eligible visitors may apply at the Thai Immigration Bureau for a further 30-day extension of stay. Key Changes The proposed revisions would revoke the current 60-day exemption and reinstate the previous stay period, thereby reducing the maximum permitted stay for eligible travelers to 30 days per entry. In addition, the number of countries and territories eligible under the 30-day visa-exemption scheme is expected to be reduced to 54. The scope of the VOA scheme would likewise be significantly narrowed, with the number of eligible countries reduced from 31 countries to just four (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, and India). Further, Thailand is expected to introduce a new 15-day visa exemption category for nationals of Seychelles, the Maldives, and Mauritius. The revised framework would also limit each country or territory to a single visa exemption privilege in order to simplify Thailand’s immigration framework and reduce overlapping immigration privileges.
Read More