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​ 

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.
Read More
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.
Read More
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
Read More
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.
Read More