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 1, 2012

Potential Liability for Termination: An Employer’s Perspective

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Many employers are unaware that terminations of employees, if not carefully considered and conducted, could not only lead to claims of civil liability for unfair termination but also potentially impose criminal liability on the company and its directors as an unfair act. It is extremely important to clearly understand what constitutes unfair termination and an unfair act, and their differences.

Under Thai law, unfair termination typically applies to situations in which the employee is terminated without cause, with insufficient cause, by grounds that are not stated in the employment contract, or in conflict with penalties stated in the work rules. Relief granted for unfair termination is typically in the form of compensation or can even extend to reinstatement of the employee.

The Labor Relations Act (LRA) clearly states what constitutes an unfair act and the procedures to take legal action against the employer. An aggrieved employee can submit a complaint to the Labor Relations Committee (LRC) within 60 days of the violation. The LRC has to consider and issue an order within 90 days upon receipt of the complaint. It is entitled to issue an order to the employer to reinstate the employee, to pay compensation, or to order the violator to carry out or not to carry out any act.

If the violator does not comply with the LRC’s order within the deadline, it will face criminal penalties such as imprisonment up to six months and/or a fine up to THB 10,000. If the violator disagrees with the order, it can petition to the court to revoke the order.

Given the potential criminal penalties involved in an unfair act, employers must be vigilant about conducting terminations in a legal and safe manner. They can do this by ensuring they have full knowledge of the circumstances in which termination could be claimed to fall under the rules governing an unfair act, as is explained below.

Under the LRA, unfair acts are grouped into three distinct categories.

  • Category one states the prohibitions on employers. Some of these are related to insufficient or wrongful cause to terminate. Employers are not allowed to terminate an employee only because, for example, the employee calls a rally, files a complaint, or is a member of a labor union. Other prohibitions include preventing the employee from joining a labor union through various means or inducing the employee to quit if he is already a member. Also, employers cannot prevent labor unions from conducting their affairs or operations without lawful authority.
  • Category two states general prohibitions not limited to employers. This means anyone could potentially be criminally liable for acts committed under this section. In general, an action can be brought against anyone who coerces or threatens, either directly or indirectly, an employee to become a member of a labor union or to resign from a labor union or who takes any action causing the employer to carry out any unfair act in the first category.
  • Category three prohibits the employer from terminating an employee while the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) remains in effect. However, there are certain exceptional circumstances, which generally involve bad behavior on the part of the employee. These include but are not limited to when the employee is dishonest in his duties or intentionally commits a criminal act against the employer; intentionally causes the employer to suffer losses; violates the employer’s work rules, regulations, or orders that are legal and fair; and when the employer has already given a written warning. Other situations include those in which the employee neglects his duties for three consecutive work days without reasonable cause or performs any act that incites, encourages, or persuades others to violate the CBA or decision of award.

However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the employer may raise other reasons to terminate the employment contract during the period when the CBA is in effect, should the employer be able to prove the necessity of termination.

Because of the pitfalls that could arise after termination and the risk of incurring criminal liability, employers need to consider more complex cases of termination and tread carefully. A forward-thinking and careful approach will go a long way toward reducing cases of litigation. When in doubt, it is always wise to seek legal advice before taking action to terminate employees.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
July 30, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved a draft ministerial regulation introducing significant changes to the calculation of old-age pension and old-age gratuity benefits under the Social Security Fund. The reform would replace the current pension calculation method with a career average revalued earnings (CARE) model designed to better reflect an individual’s lifetime contributions while supporting the long-term financial sustainability of the Social Security Fund. The changes are also intended to improve fairness and align Thailand’s pension framework with international practices. Key proposed changes under the draft ministerial regulation are outlined below. CARE-Based Formula for Old-Age Pension Calculations Currently, old-age pensions are calculated based on the insured person’s average salary over the preceding 60 months. The proposed regulation would replace this approach with the CARE model, under which pension benefits will be calculated based on earnings throughout an individual’s entire working life. Historical earnings will be revalued to reflect their present value before the pension benefit is calculated. According to the Ministry of Labor, this change is intended to better align pension benefits with an individual’s lifetime contribution history and provide a fairer basis for calculating benefits. Pension Accrual Rate for Contributions Exceeding 180 Months Under the current rules, insured persons who contribute for more than 180 months receive an additional pension accrual of 1.5% for each completed 12-month contribution period, with any remaining months disregarded. The proposed regulation would instead calculate the additional accrual on a monthly basis at a rate of 0.125% of actual monthly contributions; this aims to make pension benefits more accurately reflect the actual duration of each individual’s contribution history. Transitional Protections for Insured Persons The draft regulation includes transitional protections for both existing pension recipients and those who will become eligible within five years of the CARE model taking effect. For existing recipients, the following protections
Read More
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More