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 28, 2022
Tilleke & Gibbins employment specialists in Myanmar have contributed an updated Myanmar chapter to Employment and Employee Benefits Global Guide, a Thomson Reuters Practical Law online publication that provides an overview of employment and employee benefits in jurisdictions worldwide. The Myanmar chapter was written by members of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Yangon office, including Yuwadee Thean-ngarm, director; Nwe Oo, senior associate; Sher Hann Chua, consultant; and Kyaw Min Tun, consultant. The chapter covers a wide range of key employment topics, including employment status, background checks, regulation of the employment relationship, minimum wage, working hours and holidays, illness and injury of employees, discrimination and harassment, termination of employment, resolution of employer-employee disputes, redundancy/layoffs, employee representation and consultation, business transfer and insolvency, employee relocation, health and safety obligations, taxation of employment income, intellectual property issues, and more. Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Employment and Employee Benefits Global Guide covers 46 jurisdiction around the world, with Tilleke & Gibbins also providing the Vietnam chapter of the guide. To view the latest version of the Myanmar chapter, please visit the Practical Law website.
October 10, 2022
Thailand’s recent removal of cannabis from the list of narcotics represents a significant development for the country, and it has some human resources teams wondering whether they should prepare certain measures in order to prevent detrimental incidents from happening in their organizations. For example, some employees could still be under the influence of cannabis because they used it before coming to work. In the past, this was rarely a consideration as cannabis was clearly banned. Using cannabis or possessing cannabis inside the employer’s premises subjected employees to criminal liability including imprisonment and fines. However, now that the government has removed cannabis from the narcotics list under the Narcotics Act, such incidents are more likely to occur. This likelihood has led to concern among many employers about how they can prevent or handle these incidents. An employer does have the right to prohibit any employee from bringing cannabis inside its premises, as it is the property of the employer. The employer has the management right to do this, particularly as an employee’s use of cannabis may very well disturb other employees. But if the employer would like to set penalties for breaching the prohibition, the picture is more complicated. Employers’ Work Rules Under the Labour Protection Act (LPA), an employer who has at least 10 employees must have Thai-language work rules. These work rules must include the following items: Specification of working days, regular working hours, and rest periods; Holidays and rules for taking holidays; Rules concerning overtime work and work on holidays; Arrangements for payment of wages (i.e., schedule and location); Overtime pay, holiday pay, and holiday overtime pay; Leave and rules for taking leave; Discipline and disciplinary actions; Submission of grievances; and Termination of employment, severance pay and special severance pay. To issue or amend work rules (e.g.,
October 7, 2022
On October 3, 2022, Thailand’s Ministry of Labour issued an announcement canceling the prohibition on lockouts and strikes, which had been in place since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While this cancellation does not apply to ongoing labor disputes already being considered under the interim arrangements, it will apply to all other labor disputes from October 5, 2022, when it was published in the Government Gazette. Lockouts and strikes are basic rights of employers and employees under the Labour Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975). However, these rights can be suspended—as they have been since May 8, 2020, when the Ministry of Labour announced that all labor disputes that could not be resolved through negotiation must be presented to the Labour Relations Committee in lieu of organizing strikes or lockouts. The announcement referred to the necessity of such special administration during the COVID-19 situation in order to prevent possible negative impacts on both employers and employees. On September 30, 2022, Thailand ended its COVID-19 emergency decree and dissolved the country’s Centre for COVID-19 Situation Administration. In light of this, the Ministry of Labour decided to end the requirement that unresolved labor disputes be sent to the Labour Relations Committee. The ministry’s cancellation of the prohibition will once again allow employers and employees to organize lockouts and strikes under the Labour Relations Act, starting October 5, 2022. For more details on this development, or for assistance with employment-related questions or disputes in Thailand, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected] or +66 2056 5555.
August 30, 2022
On August 26, 2022, Thailand’s National Wage Committee voted to raise the minimum wage to THB 328–354 per day (USD 9.01–9.72)—an increase of approximately 5% from the previous range of THB 313–336. The decision to boost minimum wages, which were last increased in January 2020, came after a 14-year-high headline inflation rate of 7.61% in July 2022. The new minimum wages have been submitted to the cabinet for final approval and are expected to take effect on October 1, 2022, following publication in the Government Gazette. The exact minimum wage depends on the province in which the workplace is located, as shown in the table below. These minimum rates are for one working day, which consists of eight hours for normal work, or seven hours for work that may be harmful to the health and safety of the employee. Legal Requirements After the new minimum wages are announced in the Government Gazette, employers may not pay employees wages below the prescribed rates. Violations are punishable by imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to THB 100,000, or both. Regarding the question of whether employers can reduce the working hours in order to pay less than minimum wages (e.g., a prorated amount), based on past practice, the National Wage Committee’s announcement is expected to provide that a “day” refers to an employee’s normal working day, regardless of whether it is shorter than the “normal working hours” set by the employer under the Labor Protection Act. For example, an employee in Bangkok who earns the current minimum wage of THB 331 per day for normal working hours of eight hours a day would still be entitled to the full new rate of THB 353 per day in October 2022, even if the employer reduces the working hours. For