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​ 

August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More