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​ 

November 24, 2021
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have provided the latest update to the Thailand contribution to Doing Business in…, a Q&A-style guide published by Thomson Reuters Practical Law that presents an overview of the legal framework for doing business in 63 jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter of the guide outlines Thailand’s legal system and key laws applicable to foreign companies doing business in the country. The chapter specifically covers the following main topics: Legal system: Thailand’s court system and codified legal system. Foreign investment: Lists of reserved business activities, restrictions on doing business with certain jurisdictions, exchange controls and currency regulations, and grants and incentives available to investors. Business vehicles: Ordinary partnerships, registered ordinary partnerships, limited partnerships, private limited companies, and public companies. Environment: Main laws and regulations, factory operation. Employment: Laws, employment contract requirements, work permits, and termination and redundancy. Tax: Taxes on employment, tax and nontax resident employees and businesses, corporate income tax, value added tax, special business tax, municipal tax, stamp duty, dividends, interest, intellectual property royalties. Competition: Important aspects of Thailand’s regulatory regime surrounding competition, centered around the updated Trade Competition Act. Antibribery and corruption: Laws, compliance requirements, regulatory authority. Intellectual property: Patents, trademarks, registered and unregistered designs, and copyright. Marketing agreements and advertising: Regulation of marketing agreements, Thailand’s Consumer Protection Act, direct marketing, role of the Consumer Protection Board and Food and Drug Administration. E-commerce: E-commerce laws and regulations, marketing and sales via online platforms. Data protection: An outline of Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act. Product liability: Procedures and regulations for product liability and product safety, including the Unsafe Goods Liability Act and the Consumer Case Procedure Act. Product liability: Key regulatory authorities for trade competition, environmental issues, and financial services. To browse, download, or print the Thailand chapter, please visit the Practical Law website.
October 25, 2021
Michael Ramirez, a counsel in Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution group in Bangkok, has updated the firm’s contribution to the Global Attorney-Client Privilege Guide, published by Lex Mundi. The newly expanded guide provides information on what constitutes attorney-client privilege in over 70 countries around the world. The Thailand section of the guide contains in-depth information on the function and applications of attorney-client privilege in Thailand (or, as explained in the guide, an equivalent concept enshrined in Thai law), including coverage of the following topics: Privilege in corporations Common interest doctrine Litigation funding Crime-fraud exception Work product doctrine/litigation privilege Other privileges including mediation, accountant-client and settlement negotiation The interactive guide features expert contributions by Lex Mundi member firms from jurisdictions worldwide. Readers can browse the contributions, generate country-specific reports, and compare attorney-client privilege in multiple jurisdictions. For more information, please visit the Lex Mundi website.
October 14, 2021
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has published an updated edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand for 2021. This guide outlines all of the key factors for starting and operating a business in the Thai market. Issues covered include: Investment incentives Financial facilities Exchange controls Import and export regulations Structures for doing business Requirements for the Establishment of a Business Operation of the Business Cessation or Termination of the Business Labor legislation, relations, and supply Tax Immigration requirements This publication is part of Lex Mundi’s Guides to Doing Business series prepared by member firms in more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide. The guides serve as a useful resource when planning an international business strategy or researching a new market.
September 13, 2021
Businesses in Vietnam recognize the need to vaccinate their workers in order to keep their factories and workplaces open. In this article, we explore whether employers may require their employees to be vaccinated, as well as associated disclosure and privacy issues under Vietnamese law.