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

June 5, 2018

New Retirement Regime for Thai Private Sector Employees

Bangkok Post, Human Resources Watch Column

As Thailand gradually transforms into an ageing society, the potential economic and social burden of retiring workers is one issue that is likely to be on the minds of many employees, employers, and policymakers.

New amendments to Thailand’s Labor Protection Act have addressed this issue by introducing a retirement regime for the Thai private sector employees, placing severance obligations on employers, enhancing protection for employees, and creating a more effective framework for enforcement of labour laws.

The new Labor Protection Act (No. 6) B.E. 2560 (2017) was published in the Government Gazette on August 31, 2017, and came into effect on September 1, 2017, amending the previous Act. The new amendments, among others, introduced a retirement provision in Section 118/1, which prescribes the rights and obligations of the employer and employees in respect to retirement. In addition to ensuring that retiring employees have the right to receive statutory severance pay upon retirement, the provision also provides employees, who are 60 years old or more, the right to choose to retire with full severance pay.

Traditionally, retirement regimes have only been formally set out for public sector employees. For example, the Government Pension Act B.E. 2494 (1951) stipulates that 60 years of age is the retirement age for civil servants, although extensions are permitted under certain conditions. Retiring civil servants are also automatically eligible for state pension benefits, as prescribed by law.

In contrast, the previous Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998), which governed relationships between employers and employees in the private sector, and which provided protection for employees, did not mention retirement. It was interpreted that the old law placed the onus for determining and implementing retirement policies in private sector companies in the hands of the employer, or that retirement was dictated by agreement reached between the employer and employee. Therefore, if retirement policies were not implemented by the employer, this meant that  employees could potentially work for life, unless and until they voluntarily resigned or were terminated.

Working for life could be beneficial for some employees, but conversely, this arrangement would be disadvantageous for those employees who wished to end their employment at a certain age. Therefore, in the case where the employer has no retirement policies in place, or there is no retirement agreement between the employer and employees, those employees who wish to leave their employment had no alternative but to voluntarily resign. Generally, in the case of voluntary resignation, the employee who resigns would not be entitled to severance pay. Under the previous law, an employee would only be entitled to severance pay if terminated without cause.

Prior to the enactment of the new Labor Protection Act (No.6) B.E. 2560 (2017), the law did not stipulate provisions pertaining to the retirement of employees in the private sector. Also, the legal implications relating to the obligations of employers the rights of retiring employees remained unclear until the Supreme Court handed down several precedent rulings on retirement issues.

Supreme Court Rulings on Retirement

Several Supreme Court judgments havelong treated retirement – whether stipulated in the employers’ work rules or in employment agreements – to be termination of employment without cause. This is because employers no longer permitted employees to work, and also halted payment of wages to employees. As a result, the retiring employees were entitled to statutory severance pay. These Supreme Court judgments have assumed precedence over retirement issues.

New Retirement Regime for Private Sector Employees

Section 118/1 of the new Labor Protection Act (No. 6), B.E. 2560 (2017) seems to be a codification of the Supreme Court’s judgements and states the following:

“Retirement, according to the agreement between the employer and the employee, or as predetermined by the employer, shall be deemed as a termination of employment, in accordance with Section 118, paragraph 2. In cases where the retirement age has not been stipulated, or it has been stipulated so that it exceeds 60 years of age, the employee, who is 60 years old, may express their intention to retire to the employer. Such retirement shall be effective within 30 days from the date of such expression, and the employer shall pay severance to the employee in accordance with Section 118.”

Section 118/1 can be summarized as follows:

  • Retirement is deemed to be termination of employment, and the retiring employees are entitled to severance pay under Section 118.
  • If the employer has a retirement policy, or the employer agrees with the employee on retirement and the age of retirement, both parties are required to comply with such policy or agreement. However, the law does not prohibit both parties from agreeing otherwise, such as an extension for retirement or a renewal of employment.
  • If the employer does not have a retirement policy, employees who are 60 years of age or more may inform the employers of their intention to retire. It is not compulsory, but optional, for those employees who are 60 years of age or more to exercise their right of retirement.
  • Similar to no. 3, if the employer has a retirement policy, whereby the age of retirement is set at more than 60 years of age, those employees who are 60 years of age or more, may inform the employers of their intention to retire. It is not compulsory, but optional, for those employees who are 60 years of age or more to exercise this right of retirement.
  • The intention of the employee to retire will become effective 30 days after the date on which the employee informs their employer.

Under Section 118/1, employers still have the freedom to unilaterally determine and implement their retirement polices, or alternatively, to negotiate and mutually agree on retirement with their employees. Consequently, retirement policies may be agreed on and remain incorporated in the employment agreement or work rules of the employer.

In addition to codifying the court judgments, the new amendments to the retirement regime provide substantial benefits for employees in terms of the right to retirement, and the right to severance pay upon retirement. Significantly, employees are no longer faced with the possibility that they may need to work for life without the right to severance pay, as under the new amendments, they are entitled to conclude their professional lives, with the comfort of knowing that they have the right to severance pay simply by exercising their right to retire under the employers’ retirement policies, and in accordance with the law.

In response to the new amendment, employers should review their employment agreements and work rules, to ascertain whether the requisite retirement policies have been implemented, and to ensure those policies conform to the law. Moreover, employers may also need to securely set aside sufficient internal reserve funds in preparation for employee retirement.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 12, 2023
Myanmar has made important amendments to its minimum wage framework by increasing the minimum compensation for workers in both the public and private sectors. Background In May 2018, the National Committee for Setting the Minimum Wage determined that all workers in Myanmar should receive a minimum wage of MMK 4,800 per day (approx. USD 2.29), equivalent to MMK 600 per hour for an eight-hour workday. This rule applied to all workers, without differentiation in location or job. Government Workers and Organizations In September 2023, the Ministry of Planning and Finance announced that daily workers in government departments and organizations are entitled to receive an additional benefit of MMK 1,000 on top of their existing daily wage, which was already MMK 4,800. Consequently, they could earn a total of MMK 5,800 per day for eight hours of work. Private-Sector Workers On October 9, 2023, the national committee announced an increase of minimum wages for employees in the private sector. According to Notification No. 2/2023, workers at private-sector employers with more than 10 employees are now entitled to minimum compensation of MMK 5,800 per day (approx. USD 2.77)—an additional MMK 1,000 per eight-hour workday over the previously established minimum wage. The changes took effect on October 1, 2023. For more details about these changes, or any aspect of employee compensation or employment law in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
August 18, 2023
On August 16, 2023, Laos’ Prime Minister’s Office issued Notice No. 1502/PMO, which increases the minimum wage for all workers in Laos. This increase is a continuation of the stepped increases in the minimum wage that began in mid-2022. The recent notice increases the minimum monthly wage from LAK 1,300,000 (approx. USD 66) to LAK 1,600,000 (approx. USD 82), in accordance with an agreement reached in the government’s ordinary session in July 2023. The new minimum wage rate will take effect on October 1, 2023. This is the third minimum wage increase in Laos since June 2022. Two of the main factors responsible for this heightened frequency of minimum wage increases are the depreciation of the Lao kip against foreign currencies and inflation in the price of goods for daily consumption. These stepped increases also show the government’s proactive approach toward addressing the cost-of-living crisis in Laos and its effect on low-wage workers. For more details on the new minimum wage, or on any other labor and employment matters in Laos, please contact Dino Santaniello at [email protected] or +856 21 262 355.
July 7, 2023
Tilleke & Gibbins is pleased to announce the release of Employment Law Basics in Southeast Asia. This publication serves as an indispensable resource for businesses navigating the complex landscape of employment law in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Authored by Tilleke & Gibbins’ regional team of employment law specialists, the guide provides a detailed overview of key employment law topics essential for businesses operating or planning to expand their operations in Southeast Asia. From employment contracts to termination procedures, each topic is examined in depth to ensure businesses are well-equipped to comply with local regulations and protect their interests. Key topics covered in the guide include: Employment contracts Probationary period Minimum wage Social security and statutory payments Working hours Leave and holidays Work rules Termination Foreign employees Data protection Remote work AI and automation Our guide offers multinational corporations establishing a presence in the region and local enterprises alike practical insights and actionable advice tailored to the unique regulatory environments in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. To access the full guide, please download the PDF below.
April 28, 2023
Instead of the typical dystopian scene of flames, wastelands of shattered buildings, and robotic overlords policing the remaining humans, our actual dystopian future may be a workplace filled only with men named Jared who once played lacrosse in high school. This may sound far-fetched, but one resume-screening tool was found to be using an algorithm that concluded two factors were most determinative of job performance: the name Jared and a history of playing lacrosse in high school. The frailties of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in recruitment and hiring could transform our workforces in unpredictable ways. If employers blindly follow AI outcomes without a deeper examination of how the algorithmic decision is reached, hiring outcomes may be not only ridiculous but also discriminatory. Risks of AI-Reliant Hiring Some employers have enthusiastically embraced AI as a way to reduce costs and replace human bias in the recruitment process. Human recruiters do not have a great track record; for example, in France, discrimination in recruitment has posed such a serious problem that the government submits false work biographies with ethnic names to identify and punish employers that unreasonably reject qualified ethnic applicants. Unfortunately, AI is modeled on human thinking, so it may amplify our own prejudices and errant conclusions while giving the appearance of providing a fair and clean process. AI typically learns inductively by training on examples and historical data. Factors such as exclusion of certain groups from educational or career opportunities has often shaped this data, so AI’s decisions may amplify this past prejudice. For instance, Amazon experimented with mechanized recruitment in 2014, but abandoned these efforts prior to implementation after the AI tool selected a predominantly male workforce. The AI learned by analyzing patterns in resumes submitted to the company over the last 10 years. Since over this period