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

December 29, 2011

Laying Off Employees: Considerations for Manufacturers

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

As companies start to rebuild and recover from the recent devastating floods, many managers are taking a good hard look at their bottom line, searching for ways to survive and minimize loss. This assessment is happening in accounting departments nationwide, but is particularly prevalent in Thailand’s once-flooded industrial parks, where managers must contend with damaged machinery and a workforce on standby.

Manufacturers may be tempted to implement layoffs as an easy cost-saving measure. But any layoffs should be considered carefully and executed correctly. We recommend that employers adopt a three-pronged approach whereby employee terminations are conducted: (1) for the right reason, (2) in the right way, and (3) with the right compensation.

For the Right Reason

Employers must have just cause to terminate employees. The Supreme Court of Thailand has held that the following scenarios constituted proper grounds for laying off employees.

  • The company suffered consistent losses for a prolonged period of time.
  • The company needed to reorganize its business due to a significant economic crisis.
  • A decline in purchase orders seriously affected the company’s performance.

The court, however, possesses the discretion to assess the facts and to determine whether the particular employment termination was unfair. A court could hold, for example, that while the flooding in Thailand was widespread, it was temporary. As such, business losses due to the flooding are also temporary.

In the Right Way

If the employer decides to terminate employees, the employer must ensure that the process for selecting which employees will be laid off is transparent and fair. If the selection process is not fair or transparent, the Supreme Court may determine that the termination of a particular employee was unfair, even though there may be an underlying justifiable reason for the termination.

Employers of union members should also consider the terms of any collective bargaining agreement (CBA). If the CBA specifies a process or method for layoffs, the employer must take care to follow this process.

In addition, even though there is no legal requirement to inform the labor officer before terminating employees, it may be worth doing so as a courtesy. This is especially true where there is likely to be a backlash by employees or where the labor union is particularly strong, in order to ensure that the labor officer is fully apprised of the matter and can deal with any complaints or demands.

In addition, the employer should try to minimize the damage to the employees by issuing an announcement regarding pending layoffs in advance, to enable employees to prepare themselves for possible unemployment in the event that they are selected. For example, employers may wish to consider providing training for alternative careers or job fairs in cooperation with companies that seek to increase their workforce.

With the Right Compensation

On termination, sums payable by the employer under Thai law may include: (1) statutory severance pay, (2) payment in lieu of advance notice, (3) accrued and unused annual leave, (4) other benefits as provided in the employer’s work rules, regulations, and the employment contract, and (5) compensation for unfair termination.

Under the Labour Protection Act, the employer is required to pay statutory severance pay, which varies from 30 days (one month’s wages) to 300 days (ten months’ wages), depending on the employee’s term of employment.

In general, if an employer wishes to lay off an employee, the employer must give advance written notice at or before the date of any payment of wages in order to take effect on the next payment date. If advance notice is not given, the employer must pay remuneration in lieu of advance notice.

The employer must pay the employee is respect of any accrued annual leave for previous years and annual leave for the year of termination on a pro rata basis. Further, the employer is required to compensate the employee in accordance with the employer’s work rules or regulations (if any) and the employment contract.

Finally, if the employer is not justified in terminating the employee, the employer must pay compensation for unfair termination. The amount of compensation depends on the length of service of the employee, his or her wages, and other factors. Employers may wish to consider this principle when providing ex gratia (or voluntary) payments to departing employees.

In sum, laying off employees as a business preservation measure must be undertaken carefully and with the assistance of qualified legal counsel. If layoffs are not executed for the right reason, in the right way, and with the right compensation, managers may be setting their company up for numerous unfair termination lawsuits. Indeed, a flood of litigation may damage a business more than the flood itself.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
April 29, 2026
Is arbitration only as good as the arbitrator? Undoubtedly. Choosing an arbitrator is therefore one of the most pivotal decisions a party makes in the arbitration proceedings. In practice in Vietnam, many arbitration proceedings have been significantly prolonged because of multiple unsuccessful appointments arising from conflicts of interest, challenges by the opposing party, or subsequent unavailability. In other cases, additional expenses were incurred where appointed arbitrators were located far from the hearing venue or were unfamiliar with the arbitration language or applicable law. To preempt these issues and secure a more efficient and cost-effective appointment, this article proposes a practical, step-by-step approach to arbitrator selection. Step 1: Know Your Own Case At the outset, it is essential to develop a clear understanding of the dispute by addressing the following key considerations: Nature of the dispute: From which sector does it arise (e.g., construction, international trade, investment, banking and finance, technology, intellectual property)? Value and complexity: Is the dispute high or low in value? Does it involve multiple parties, multiple legal systems, or foreign elements? Is its crux related to multiple legal matters? Existing arbitration agreement: Does the agreement specify the seat, language, and governing law? If not, what would be appropriate considering the parties’ conduct and the applicable arbitration rules? Having clear answers to these questions in mind will help identify, from the outset, the core criteria for selecting an appropriate arbitrator. Step 2: Form Your Candidate Pool Based on the understanding developed in Step 1, a candidate pool should be formed through a structured and careful process: Researching Arbitrator Profiles At the initial stage, comprehensive research should be conducted via reliable sources to ensure both accuracy and diversity of candidates. Official sources, such as lists of arbitrators published by arbitral institutions, most notably the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre
April 29, 2026
Vietnam’s education sector is entering a new regulatory era. On December 10, 2025, the National Assembly adopted a series of new and amended laws in the field of education, including the 2025 Law on Vocational Education, the 2025 Law on Higher Education, and the amended Law on Education No. 123/2025/QH15 (Amended Law on Education). These laws together took effect on January 1, 2026, marking a significant reform of Vietnam’s legal framework governing the education sector. The legislative package introduces a new lawmaking approach under which foundational and principle-based provisions are codified in the Amended Law on Education, while the Law on Higher Education and the Law on Vocational Education serve as specialized statutes providing supplementary, sector-specific regulatory detail tailored to their respective subsectors. The Amended Law on Education fundamentally restructures how educational institutions are established, governed, and licensed, with direct implications for private investors, foreign-invested entities, and education service providers operating in Vietnam. Below are several highlights of the key changes under the amended law, especially in the private sector, that stakeholders should understand: Change in the National Education System In addition to primary education, lower secondary (junior high school) education is now compulsory in Vietnam. Accordingly, diplomas are no longer awarded upon completion of lower secondary school but only for upper education levels. The national education system is also expanded through the introduction of vocational high school as a new level of vocational education. Such reform creates additional learning pathways that not only enable learners to pursue both further education and participate in the labor market, but also better align education and training with socioeconomic development needs. New Hurdle for Joint Investors: Mandatory Corporate Entity Requirement Where two or more investors jointly establish an education institution, the investors are no longer permitted to directly establish such an institution.
March 31, 2026
Against the backdrop of Vietnam’s rapid economic and technological transformation and its ambition to build a knowledge-driven economy, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Higher Education No. 125/2025/QH15 on December 10, 2025, The new law took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Higher Education No. 08/2012/QH13 of 2012 and its subsequent amendments after more than a decade of implementation. The new law reflects a significant policy shift toward enhancing the institutional autonomy of higher education institutions (“HEIs”)—universities and other university-level institutions. By granting broader autonomy, Vietnam aims to enable HEIs to operate more proactively, better respond to market needs, and improve the quality and efficiency of education and research activities. Comprehensive Institutional Autonomy in HEIs The new law marks a significant shift by granting HEIs comprehensive autonomy as a statutory right, within the bounds of the licensed scope of educational operation and the legal framework, rather than a conditional right as provided under the former law. Under the new law, HEIs are empowered to exercise autonomy over their academic expertise, training, scientific research, international cooperation, organizational structure, personnel, finance, and other higher education activities. The expansion of institutional autonomy is also accompanied by a correspondingly strengthened framework of institutional accountability. However, Vietnam maintains a certain degree of control and imposes restrictions on institutional autonomy in sensitive and strategically important areas. These controls and restrictions include limitations on training autonomy in the majors of teacher training, national defense, and security; and restrictions on financial and personnel management autonomy for HEIs under the administration of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Public Security. New Model for Curriculum Development The new law removes the concept of “opening a training major” and focuses regulation on how training programs are developed and delivered. Under the previous regime,