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 6, 2018

To Move or Not to Move: Significant Points for Employers Considering Relocation

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post

During difficult times, it is normal practice for businesses to adapt by reducing costs to survive. Some businesses may choose to reduce costs by reorganizing or downsizing, which may be followed by relocation to a smaller office with lower rental fees. To relocate efficiently and legally, businesses should be aware of their obligations under the Thai Labour Protection Act (LPA).

Under section 120 of the LPA, if an employer has to relocate their place of business in a way that will materially impact the ordinary course of living of employees or their families, the employer needs to notify employees not less than 30 days prior to the date of relocation of the place of business.

If any employee would not like to work for the employer at the new place of business, the employee is entitled to terminate their employment contract with the employer within 30 days from the date of receipt of the employer’s notice or the date of relocation  of the employer’s place of business, as the case may be, and the employee is entitled to receive special severance equal to statutory severance under section 118 of the LPA.

The amount of the employer’s statutory severance obligation under section 118 depends on the length of an employee’s years of service at the company, which can vary from 30 days to 300 days of last wages.

However, when an employer closes an office and moves employees to a new office, it does not mean that all types of relocation will be considered as “relocation” under section 120 of the LPA, which requires the employer to pay special severance to the employees and to comply with other procedures set out in the LPA.

Combining Multiple Locations

The Thai Supreme Court has ruled that if an employer has two locations and combines the offices by moving its employees to a single location and closing another office, the employer is not obligated to pay special severance to employees, as this does not constitute a relocation under section 120.

For example, if an employer has two existing offices – one in Bangkok and one in Pattaya – and closes one office and moves its employees to the remaining office, this is not an issue of relocation and the employer is not required by the LPA to pay special severance to employees who would not like to move to the other office.

Nearby and Distant Relocations

In another scenario, if any employer relocates their place of business by closing a current office and opening a new office, but the location of the new office does not materially impact the course of living of the employees or their families, the employer is not required to pay special severance.

The Thai Supreme Court has ruled that if an employer relocates their place of business to a new location that is approximately 50 kilometres from the previous office or from Bangkok to another province, this relocation materially affects the course of living of the employees and their families. Therefore, the distance between the employer’s previous office and new office is one major consideration.

Relocation Notification Procedures

Therefore, for the relocation of a company to be subject to section 120 of the LPA, which sets forth specific procedures for the employer to follow, including the payment of special severance to employees, that relocation must affect the ordinary course of an employee’s life or that of his or her family. A summary of processes for an employer to follow in such a circumstance is as follows:

First, the employer must notify the employees no less than 30 days prior to relocation.

Second, if an employee chooses not to relocate with the company, that employee must terminate his or her employment contract within 30 days of receipt of the employer’s relocation notification.

Third, the employer must pay special severance equal to the statutory severance under section 118 of the Labour Protection Act, no later than seven days after the employee’s termination of his or her employment contract.

Special Severance Compensation

If an employer fails to inform their employees 30 days in advance of relocation, the employer, in addition to paying special severance under section 120, must also pay an additional amount in lieu of advance notice. This amount is typically equal to approximately one month’s wages, but can be more in some cases.

If an employer fails to satisfy their special severance obligation, the employee can file a complaint with the Labour Welfare Committee within 30 days of the due date of the payment. The employee must first terminate his or her contract pursuant to section 120 before the employer is required to pay special severance and before the employee may file a complaint with the Labour Welfare Committee.

Labour Welfare Committee Orders

If the committee finds that the employee is entitled to special severance, it will issue a written order to the employee within 60 days of receiving the complaint. After receiving the order, the employer must pay the special severance within 30 days. If the employer still fails to pay the special severance, the employer could face criminal charges, with its officers or directors facing possible punishment of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding THB 100,000, or both. If the committee finds that the employee is not entitled to the special statutory severance, it must inform all parties in writing.

Within 30 days of receiving the committee’s order, either party may file an appeal with the Labour Court. If an appeal is filed, the employer is required to post a bond equal to the amount in dispute. If neither party appeals the committee’s order within the 30-day prescription period, the committee’s order is final.

As the LPA imposes criminal penalties, such as imprisonment and a fine, for noncompliance, any employer who chooses relocation to reduce costs should be aware of the processes required under Thai law.

This story was originally published in the Bangkok Post and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. The original story can be viewed here on the Bangkok Post website.

Related Professionals

Practices

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 23, 2026
Many multinational companies are familiar with the concept of “time off in lieu” (TOIL), under which employees receive compensatory time off instead of overtime pay for additional hours worked. While TOIL is common in many jurisdictions, employers in Thailand should be cautious, as Thai labor law does not expressly recognize TOIL as a substitute for statutory overtime-related compensation. Under the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA), employees who work overtime or perform work on holidays are generally entitled to statutory overtime, holiday, or holiday overtime compensation, including: Overtime Pay: 1.5 times the employee’s normal wage rate for work performed beyond normal working hours on a regular working day. Holiday Pay: 1 or 2 times the employee’s normal wage rate for work performed during normal working hours on a holiday, depending on category of employee. Holiday Overtime Pay: 3 times the employee’s normal wage rate for overtime work performed on a holiday. Importantly, the LPA does not contain any provision expressly permitting employers to substitute overtime-related compensation with compensatory leave, as such compensation is treated as a payment obligation rather than additional time off. Why TOIL Can Be Risky in Thailand Thai labor law is protective in nature, and statutory entitlements to overtime, holiday, and holiday overtime pay are generally regarded as minimum employee rights. As a result, these rights cannot be waived, even with the employee’s consent. Therefore, an employer who grants TOIL instead of paying statutory overtime-related compensation may still be exposed to claims for unpaid amounts, notwithstanding that compensatory leave has already been provided. Thai courts have affirmed this principle, holding that employers remain liable for statutory payments for work performed beyond normal working hours even where substitute time off has been granted. Are There Any Exceptions? Certain categories of employees are exempt from overtime-related compensation,
Read More
September 9, 2026
On August 25, 2026, Thailand’s cabinet approved in principle a draft amendment that would extend mandatory social security coverage to three categories of workers currently excluded from Thailand’s compulsory social security system. The amendment, proposed by the Ministry of Labour, would modify the Royal Decree Prescribing Businesses and Employees Excluded from the Social Security Act B.E. 2560 (2017). Newly Covered Workers The cabinet-approved proposal would remove the exclusions for the following three categories of employees, bringing them within Thailand’s mandatory social security system: Workers in seasonal cultivation (pho pluk), forestry (pa mai), and livestock (liang sat) businesses that do not employ workers year-round and whose operations do not include other types of business activities. Notably, fishery (pramong) workers were excluded from this amendment following objections raised at a Social Security Board meeting on April 30, 2025, because employers and employees in the fishery sector can already agree to opt into social security coverage under fishery labor laws. Domestic workers and other employees of individual employers where the work performed is not part of a business operation (e.g., housekeepers, gardeners, drivers). This group has actively demanded inclusion in the social security system. Workers employed in street-stall businesses operating fixed street stalls (kan kha phaeng loi). The rationale for including street-stall workers is that their employers have fixed, identifiable places of business that can be inspected. Accordingly, workers engaged in itinerant street hawking (kan kha re) remain excluded. The expanded coverage would apply to both Thai and foreign employees who possess valid identity documents and work permits, including migrant workers who have been granted special permission to work in Thailand. The Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990) does not restrict social security registration based on nationality, allowing these workers to register as insured persons under section 33. Employer Obligations and Employee
Read More
September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More
August 31, 2026
Thailand has introduced a new regulatory framework that may expose foreign nationals who violate the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to deportation. The Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation B.E. 2569 was published in the Government Gazette on August 27, 2026. The regulation establishes an administrative process for referring foreign nationals for deportation where this is deemed necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. It does not create new substantive deportation powers, but it expressly identifies unlawful business conduct under the FBA—including nominee arrangements—as grounds for referral. Grounds for Deportation Referral The regulation sets out five grounds that may give rise to a referral to the relevant authorities: Unlawful entry into, or unlawful stay in, Thailand in violation of immigration laws. Unlawful employment or engagement in work in violation of laws governing the employment of foreign nationals. Carrying on business in violation of the FBA, including through the use of nominee arrangements. Forging official documents or using forged official documents. Committing an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The framework takes a broad approach, extending not only to the perpetrators of these acts but also to those who facilitate, instigate, or otherwise support such acts. Deportation Risk Following a Criminal Judgment Where a foreign national has committed any of the above offenses and has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a final judgment, the interior minister has the power to order deportation. This power also applies where a court has issued a final judgment sentencing a foreign national to imprisonment but has suspended the execution of the sentence, or has imposed a fine. A deportation order may also specify a period during which the foreign national is prohibited from reentering Thailand. FBA Noncompliance: Broader Consequences Noncompliance with the FBA—including
Read More