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 30, 2020

Legal Implications of COVID-19 Disruption for Employers in Thailand

Bangkok Post Human Resources Watch

As the COVID-19 situation escalates, governments worldwide are imposing travel restrictions, mandatory quarantine procedures, and curfews and lockdowns in an attempt to slow the transmission of the virus. The Thai government has announced many measures to deal with the COVID-19 outbreaks, including ordering the postponement of the Songkran holidays and the temporary shutdown of portions of the public and private sectors. 

The pace of this escalation can make it difficult for employers in Thailand to keep up with their legal obligations and rights. As Thailand and many other countries have either locked down their borders or instituted strict travel restrictions, an employer’s imposition of travel restrictions on its employees—a pressing issue only a week or so ago—is no longer a major concern. Instead, the more important issues are the recent announcements by the Thai authorities postponing the Songkran holidays, ordering the temporary shutdown of portions of the public and private sectors, and yet-to-be announced measures (at the time of writing) under a planned state of emergency. 

The postponement (until further notice) of the 2020 Songkran holiday, originally scheduled for April 13–15, was announced by a cabinet meeting resolution. Accordingly, April 13–15 will no longer be public holidays this year, and the government will announce substitution dates for the Songkran holidays at a later time. According to the cabinet announcement, employers that had already announced the public holidays in advance have the legal right to postpone their Songkran holidays. Should the employees be required to work on those dates, they are entitled to receive their normal hourly rate or salary. 

Another announcement came from the Bangkok governor, who ordered the closure of various establishments and locations. These include:

  • restaurants (except take-away services);
  • shopping malls (except supermarkets and pharmacies);
  • markets (except for fresh markets);
  • exhibition halls;
  • schools and educational institutions;
  • barbers, beauty salons, and tattoo shops;
  • game and internet shops;
  • golf courses and sports clubs;
  • beauty and cosmetic clinics, spas, massage parlors, and saunas;
  • theaters;
  • boxing stadiums and schools and horse racing clubs; and
  • other establishments similar to the above.

Some of these private-sector businesses that have been temporarily shuttered by the Bangkok governor’s announcement may consider this to be a situation that requires substantial changes to their working practices, including moving to a work-from-home model if possible. However, if the nature of the business cannot accommodate working from home, or if the employer does not have any work for the employees to do from home, the following options exist:

  1. Employees are entitled to use their annual leave so that they can continue to get paid during this time.
  2. If the employees do not have sufficient annual leave, then the employer can instruct them to take leave without pay. This is in accordance with the concept of “no work, no pay” as this situation is not the employer’s fault. Nonetheless, many employers that are able to do so still choose to pay employees’ full or partial salary during this shutdown period so that their employees will continue to have an income stream for their living expenses.
  3. If an employee is actually sick during this shutdown period (regardless of whether the illness is related to COVID-19), the employee can use sick leave with pay for up to 30 days, or more if the employer’s sick leave policy allows it.

There are also many businesses impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak that are not directly ordered to close down by the authorities. In such a case, if the employer has to wholly or partially suspend the business, the employer may, under section 75 of the Labour Protection Act, elect to pay 75% of the employee’s normal wages during the suspension, subject to meeting certain criteria. If the employer chooses this option, it must give employees—as well as the labor inspector—written notice at least three working days in advance of the suspension of the business, and prove that the situation has caused them to be incapable of maintaining normal business operations. However, the employer does not need the consent of the employees to exercise this option.   

If an employer wishes to reduce an employee’s salary by more than the 25% stipulated in section 75, they can only do so with the consent of the employee, as such a reduction would be considered a change in the conditions of employment. This is another option that is not related to section 75 but is based on a mutual agreement between employer and employee. In this instance, the employer is not required to provide proof of incapability to maintain normal business. In this current situation, some companies in the hospitality and travel industries have adopted this approach in dealing with this crisis.

Many companies have made adjustments to their business operations and work procedures to enable their employees to maintain their employment and continue to press on through this difficult time. This is an admirable position for these companies to take, as it demonstrates the companies’ appreciation for the employees and recognition of employees’ role in making the company profitable. However, it is not an option for all companies, and for those whose business are more severely impacted, the measures described above may provide some additional relief. 

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Vientiane have contributed the Laos chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Laos chapter was prepared by associates Naiyane Xaechao and Sayphin Singsouvong. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Laos chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Phnom Penh have contributed the Cambodia chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Cambodia chapter was authored by Jay Cohen, partner and director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office, and Chanvisal Lok, associate. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Cambodia chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
December 19, 2025
On December 12, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Labor published a ministerial regulation prescribing the minimum and maximum wages used as a base for calculating social security contributions. The regulation, which takes effect on January 1, 2026, sets a flat minimum base wage of THB 1,650 per month and a phased increase of the maximum base wage over the following six years, as outlined in the table below. Impact on Social Security Benefits Not only will monthly contributions increase as a result of the adjustment to the maximum wages used as a base for calculating social security contributions, but the maximum benefits available to insured persons will also be enhanced, as shown in the next table. Employer Obligations From January 1, 2026, employers must correctly withhold wages and remit social security contributions for both the employer’s and employees’ portions in compliance with the revised thresholds. Failure to comply may expose employers to penalties under the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990). Employers should ensure that payroll systems are updated as necessary to reflect these changes to the wage ceiling used for social security contribution calculations.