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

March 6, 2015

Labor Disputes under Martial Law

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Martial law has been in force in Thailand since last May 20, when it was invoked by the military, which staged a full-scale coup two days later to bring an end to months of street demonstrations and political turmoil. While it certainly has had an effect on political protests, martial law also has ramifications for another form of social protest—labor disputes.

Under Thai labor law, workers are legally entitled to strike and employers allowed to “lock out” employees. Martial law provides the labor minister with the added power to intercede in disputes between workers and management. The minister is authorized to prohibit workers from striking and restrict employers from locking out employees. The minister is also authorized to appoint a third party to resolve disputes.

The minister is permitted to step in when a conflict between workers and management is designated an “unsettled labor dispute” under the Labor Relations Act. For a dispute to reach this stage, the parties must first comply with a series of procedures stated in the Act that encourage a peaceful resolution.

In accordance with the Act, for labor-side complaints, either individual employees or a union must submit a demand to the employer. For employer-side issues, an employer must submit its demand to employees or the labor union. In either case, the parties must begin negotiations within three days of submitting notice of a dispute.

If the parties are able to settle, they must enter into a written agreement signed by their representatives. Within three days of signing the agreement, an employer must display the agreement at the workplace for a period of at least 30 days. The employer must also register the agreement with the Labor Ministry within 15 days from the date of signing.

If the parties do not settle after negotiations or fail to negotiate at all, the labor demand is formally designated a “labor dispute.” In this situation, the party that submitted the labor demand must give written notice to a mediator within 24 hours after the lapse of the three-day period or from the time the negotiations failed.

The mediator is then obliged to resolve the dispute within five days. If a settlement is reached, the employer must proceed with the same notice requirements as previously mentioned. If not, the dispute becomes an “unsettled labor dispute.”

When the dispute reaches the unsettled phase, the party initiating the labor action must submit a written notice to the opposing party and the mediator at least 24 hours prior to taking action—that is, a strike or lockout.

The parties then have the legal right to either appoint a labor arbitrator to resolve the dispute by binding arbitration (if agreed by both parties), go on strike (in the case of worker-side disputes), or initiate a lockout (for employer-side disputes).

Under martial law, at this stage of the dispute the labor minister has the authority to become involved by either appointing a person to decide the dispute’s outcome or simply prohibiting the strike or lockout from occurring. The decision to intervene is solely at the discretion of the minister. Importantly, the minister is not required to give a reason for the interdiction.

Failure to follow the minister’s order or a decision made by the minister’s appointee is a crime. If a party engages in a strike or lockout in violation of the minister’s prohibition, that party can be imprisoned for up to two years and/or fined up to THB 40,000. Violating an order made by the minister’s appointee carries a prison term of up to a year and/or a maximum fine of THB 20,000.

Pursuant to a Supreme Court precedent case, an appointee’s order can be challenged in court. But the challenger faces a high burden to overturn the order. The challenging party must prove the order is in clear violation of the law or in contradiction of the facts and evidence. Failure to prove this will result in a dismissal of the challenge, and the order will stand.

This is not the first time labor disputes have been affected by martial law. When martial law was invoked in the past, the labor minister addressed strikes and lockouts by simultaneously prohibiting them and appointing a party to decide the dispute.

Since martial law took effect last May, the labor minister has not issued any order prohibiting a strike or lockout. This seems to indicate that strikes and lockouts are being allowed to continue as normal. However, the government’s approach could change, depending on the individual circumstances of the strike or lockout.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
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