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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only