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

March 25, 2020

Options for Employers in Thailand During the COVID-19 Outbreak

Subscribe to Updates

As Thailand, and the world, face the growing COVID-19 crisis, the impact has begun to spread beyond people’s health and into the economy as a whole. While some businesses may be able to move to remote working practices to minimize economic distress, others may require a physical presence that becomes difficult or impossible to maintain, or may face substantial changes to their operations, resulting in hardship or emergency measures.

In this rapidly developing situation, employers may thus find themselves faced with unforeseeable events that require them to take drastic actions related to their workforce. In such instances, it is important that employers know their options. This article identifies some of the more common scenarios that are arising, and what employers in Thailand can do under Thai labor laws when faced with them.

1.  An employee is quarantined by authorities for being in a risk group

The employer does not need to pay wages to the employee during the quarantine period, under the principle of “no work no pay.”

2.  An employee falls ill with COVID-19 and needs to take sick leave

The employer is required by law to pay wages to the employee, but not exceeding 30 days in a year. 

3.  Authorities issue an order requiring the employer’s business to temporarily close down

The employer is not required to pay wages during the closure period ordered by the authorities—again under the principle of “no work no pay.”

4.  The employer decides to temporarily cease operations

If the COVID-19 outbreak critically impacts the employer’s business, for example by causing a greatly reduced number of customers or a greatly decreased amount of purchase orders, and the employer needs to close down the business temporarily or stop production, the employer may apply for a temporary cessation of operations. An example of this would be where an employer has to reduce production by 50 percent and needs to ask employees to work for only three days a week, rather than the normal five. Another example would be where the employer separates employees into groups and assigns each group to work for a certain time and then take time off on a rotating basis.

Under section 75 of the Labor Protection Act (LPA), an employer is entitled to temporarily cease operations, during which time they must pay employees at least 75% of their regular working-day wages, subject to the following conditions:

  • There is a necessity and a significant cause for the employer to take this step, such as the employer’s business being unable to operate as usual.
  • The necessity is not considered to be force majeure  under Thai law. If an event is deemed to have arisen due to a force majeure  event, the employer is entitled to forgo paying wages to employees—this is discussed in more detail below.
  • The employer has to elect whether to seek a temporary cessation of operations on a whole or partial basis.
  • The employer has to inform a labor inspection officer, and the employees, three business days in advance of the intended cessation of operations.
  • The employer has to pay employees throughout the entire period of cessation.
  • The cessation period depends on the situation on a case-by-case basis. Once the previously cited reason for cessation of operations has subsided, making the measure no longer necessary, the employer has to cancel the cessation measure.

The LPA does not indicate what qualifies as a “necessity” for employers to invoke the measure. Thai Supreme Court precedent, however, does offer some guidance, indicating that both (1) a reduction in customer purchase orders and (2) financial difficulties faced by the employer are viewed as situations of necessity. Furthermore, the situation has to be significant and must seriously impact the employer’s business. It cannot be a result of the employer’s own failure to conduct business efficiently.

5.  The employer decides to lay off employees

Under Thai labor law, if the COVID-19 virus impacts the employer’s business to the point that the business cannot operate, the employer may terminate or lay off employees, taking care to observe the following conditions:

  • Employees must be informed of the planned layoffs at least one pay period in advance, in accordance with the LPA. Otherwise, the employer is required to pay remuneration in lieu of advance notice. If relevant employment contracts, collective bargaining agreements (CBA), or work rules state a longer period for informing the employee of layoffs, the employer must comply with the contract or CBA.
  • Statutory severance depends on each employee’s length of service, from 30 days’ pay at the employee’s most recent wage rate for those who have worked with the employer for at least 120 days consecutively, but less than one year; up to 400 days’ pay for employees who have worked with the employer for at least 20 consecutive years.
  • Employers must make necessary remuneration for other benefits under the employment contract, work rules, and laws, such as unused annual leave and so on.

In addition, if the employer has a CBA with a labor union or the employees regarding temporary cessation of operations or layoffs, the employer must abide by the procedures stated in the CBA. Failure to do so could result in the employees claiming violation of the CBA.

6.  Force majeure prevents the employer from paying wages

At present, the court has not taken a clear position on whether the COVID-19 situation is or can result in a force majeure  event, and it is likely to be addressed by the court on a case-by-case basis. Situations arising from events deemed as force majeure , resulting in the employer not being able to operate, enable the employer to withhold all wages from employees.

Force majeure  is described under Thai law as referring to events that a person is not able to protect against, despite taking the appropriate care that should be reasonably expected from him or her in such a situation. Earthquakes and tsunamis are examples of force majeure —for example, the collapse of a factory due to an earthquake, resulting in the employer being unable to operate, would justify withholding of wages.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court has ruled that the following events do not qualify as force majeure :

  • A seasonal wildfire where the party does not undertake any preventive action;
  • A violent storm that usually occurs every season;
  • Flooding of a factory’s premises; and,
  • A factory fire.

However, if the above incidents result in the shutdown of a factory, the employer would still be entitled to apply for temporary cessation of operations under LPA section 75.

While it remains unclear what situations, if any, will constitute force majeure  during the COVID-19 crisis, this is sure to be a topic of dispute between employers and employees in the coming months.

Business Survival Strategies

Although the measures described in this article, such as temporary cessation of business operations and layoffs, may not be the answer to all of an employer’s problems in this current economic crisis, for some it may be a question of survival. Acting prudently to handle these challenges is of utmost importance, which in this case means being fully informed of each potential action before implementing one course or another.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 12, 2025
Cross-border disputes often end with a judgment or arbitral award issued outside Thailand. When a party has assets or operations in Thailand, the key question becomes simple: will a Thai court enforce it? Thai law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently. Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly and must effectively be re-litigated. Foreign arbitral awards, however, benefit from a clear recognition and enforcement process under the New York Convention and Thailand’s Arbitration Act. Thailand’s Overall Approach Thailand does not have a general law or treaty that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court judgments. To rely on a foreign judgment, a party must initiate a new lawsuit in a Thai court, plead the claim under Thai law, and prove the case again. The foreign judgment can be used as evidence, but it is not binding, and the Thai court retains full discretion to reassess both the facts and the law. Foreign arbitral awards are treated more favorably. Thailand is a longstanding member of the New York Convention and has implemented it through the Arbitration Act. The act provides a straightforward process for asking a Thai court to recognize and enforce a qualifying award, without retrying the dispute, and subject only to limited refusal grounds. Foreign Court Judgments: Persuasive but Not Binding Although Thai courts do not recognize or enforce foreign court judgments, they may rely on them as persuasive evidence under certain conditions. Courts generally give more weight to judgments that are final on the merits, issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, and reached after proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. Default judgments or rulings based primarily on procedural grounds carry less weight, and the ultimate relevance and weight are left to the court’s discretion. In practical
Read More
December 8, 2025
As Thailand transitions into an aged society, retirement policy and workplace protections for older workers have come into sharper focus. With public sentiment increasingly open to working beyond the traditional retirement age, questions about employee rights and employer obligations are more relevant than ever. In October 2025, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul proposed increasing the statutory retirement age to 65 for government officers, citing Thailand’s aged-society status and the potential social and economic benefits of longer working lives. While academics and stakeholders have raised concerns about systemic impacts, public opinion remains divided, with many workers signaling a willingness to continue working beyond the current norm. Against this backdrop, it’s worth revisiting what the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA) requires in regard to retirement and severance pay. This article explains the current legal landscape under the LPA, with a focus on retirement and severance pay for employees over 60, recent judicial developments, and practical options for structuring postretirement engagements. Retirement as Termination Under the LPA Under the LPA, retirement—whether set by agreement between employer and employee or unilaterally stipulated by the employer—is deemed a termination of employment. As a result, employees who retire under such terms are entitled to severance pay. The law also adds a default rule: if there is no agreed or prescribed retirement age, or if the prescribed retirement age exceeds 60, an employee aged 60 or older may declare an intention to retire. The declaration takes effect 30 days after notice, and the employer must pay severance accordingly. In short, retirement triggered by agreement, the employer’s work rules, or an employee’s valid notice is treated as a termination, and statutory severance pay is owed. Hiring or Rehiring Employees Over 60 Practical issues arise when an employer’s work rules set a retirement age that does not
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
December 3, 2025
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office have contributed the Thailand chapter to Litigation 2026, published by Chambers and Partners. Litigation 2026 provides an overview of litigation procedures and practices across numerous jurisdictions. The guide is a key reference for businesses, in-house counsel, and legal professionals seeking to understand and compare litigation frameworks around the world. The Thailand chapter delivers analysis of 14 core areas of litigation, including: General characteristics of the legal system and court structure Litigation funding options and requirements Procedures for initiating lawsuits and pre-trial steps Discovery processes and injunctive relief Trial procedures and rules on evidence Settlement mechanisms and enforcement Damages and judgment considerations Appeal processes and cost issues Alternative dispute resolution and arbitration Developments and future outlook for dispute resolution in Thailand Each section offers practical guidance on navigating Thailand’s litigation landscape, providing useful context for international businesses and legal practitioners involved in dispute resolution matters. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides deliver expert commentary on key practice areas across jurisdictions, allowing readers to compare legislation, procedures, and practical considerations relevant to business operations. The Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, and the full Litigation 2026 guide is available free of charge on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More