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​ 

March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
Read More
March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
Read More
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
Read More
February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
Read More