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​ 

March 31, 2026
On December 10, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Vocational Education No. 124/2025/QH15, which took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Vocational Education No. 74/2014/QH13 of 2014. The new law broadens the categories of institutions eligible to deliver vocational training, introduces vocational upper secondary schools, and shifts governance structures for private institutions from ownership-representative boards of management to stakeholder-based school councils. These reforms aim to diversify training providers, align programs with labor market needs, and create a more flexible, open vocational education ecosystem, offering expanded opportunities for foreign and domestic investors, universities, and enterprises. Some highlights of the new Law on Vocational Education are presented below. Expansion of Vocational Training Levels and Programs In addition to elementary, intermediate, and college—the three levels of vocational training program set out under the 2014 Law on Vocational Education—the new law expands the structure by introducing two new levels: Vocational high school training programs are placed between elementary and intermediate levels, and are aimed at combining upper secondary education with vocational training, expanding options for learners after graduating from the lower secondary level. Other vocational training programs are not specified in detail under the new law, but aim to equip learners with the capability to perform and handle one or several simple tasks of an occupation. Expansion of Vocational Education Providers The new law reclassifies and extends vocational education providers by classifying them into two distinct categories: Vocational education institutions, which include colleges, intermediate schools, and vocational high schools. Establishments participating in vocational education activities, which include vocational education centers, vocational-continuing education centers, continuing education centers, other centers with vocational education functions, enterprises, cooperatives, and higher education institutions. Vocational education providers may provide one vocational training level only, or several/all levels, depending on the type of provider. The
March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the