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

September 5, 2014

Subcontracted Workers and Employer Liability

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Businesses in Thailand, particularly manufacturers, have used workers employed as subcontractors through agreements with third parties to meet fluctuating demand, reduce labor costs, and otherwise benefit from the flexibility that subcontracted employees provide.

However, the addition of Section 11/1 of the Labor Protection Act (LPA) in 2008 and its interpretation by the Supreme Court in 2012 makes a number of significant changes to Thailand’s labor law that may expose employers using subcontractors to liability. The following article explains the current law and looks at situations where employers are likely to incur liability under Section 11/1. The goal is to raise employer awareness and thereby reduce the risk of liability resulting from subcontracted employees.

LPA Section 11/1

The LPA generally provides strong protection to employees in Thailand. Enacted in 1998, it sets the standards and employee benefit rules with which employers must comply, including those related to minimum wage, working hours, overtime pay, etc. Employer violations of the LPA carry both civil and criminal penalties, and employees have ample access to the labor courts.

Within a few years of the LPA being enacted, the Labor Ministry found that businesses were using subcontractor agreements to avoid their obligations under the Act. The ministry viewed this as an abuse resulting in an inequality between the wages and benefits of regular and subcontracted employees. In 2008, parliament amended the LPA to include Section 11/1 in an attempt to clearly define the obligations of businesses using subcontracted employees. Its aim was to protect subcontracted employees who do the same work as regular employees, where such jobs were part of the “production process or business” of the company.

LPA Section 11/1 states:

“Where an operator authorizes a person to provide personnel to work, which is not a job placement business, and such work is part of the production process or business under the responsibility of the operator, and whether or not such person will supervise the performance of work or be responsible for payment of wages to those who do such work, the operator shall be deemed the employer of those engaged to do such work.

The operator shall arrange for an employee hired for a wage who works in the same manner as an employee under a direct employment contract to, without discrimination, receive fair rights, benefits, and welfare.”

Although the addition of Section 11/1 appeared to be a clear call to businesses to change their practices, many may not have been aware of the amendment or may have believed that the benefits they provided to subcontracted employees were already “fair.”

Whatever the reason, they continued to provide different benefits and welfare to subcontracted employees, resulting in the filing of lawsuits for violations of Section 11/1. The LPA sets forth criminal liability in the form of a fine not exceeding THB 100,000 for violations of this section.

Case Study

The following example may help to clarify Section 11/1 and an employer’s obligations:

A vehicle manufacturer operating a production facility in Thailand produces each vehicle using multiple production processes. All of the processes are essential to the production of the vehicle and are thus considered part of the “production process or business” of the company. The company provides its regular employees with a Cost of Living Adjustment, a food allowance, and a transport allowance.

If this company hires a subcontractor to provide employees to work in any stage of the production, and the work is the same as that performed by its regular employees, then the subcontracted employees will be deemed employees of the company for the purposes of Section 11/1. Thus, the company must provide “fair rights, welfare, and benefits” to all subcontracted employees, without discrimination. But what does “fair” mean?

Fair Rights, Welfare, and Benefits

In 2012, the Supreme Court faced such a case. In that case, the company provided what it believed to be “fair” rights, welfare, and benefits to the subcontracted employees, but which were actually significantly less than those provided to its regular employees.

The Supreme Court ruled that the company, in order to comply with Section 11/1, must pay its subcontracted employees the same benefits and welfare as it did to its regular employees. In other words, “fair” means the “same” when it comes to providing benefits to subcontracted employees.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 11/1 means that subcontracted employees can no longer be used as a method for reducing labor costs, and employers utilizing subcontracted employees must be aware of their obligations in order to avoid potential claims in the future.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
Read More
January 26, 2021
On January 1, 2021, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 152/2020/ND-CP dated December 30, 2020, providing guidance concerning foreigners working in Vietnam (Decree 152). Foreign investors and expatriates should be aware of some notable new points.
Read More
January 12, 2021
Due to the resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand since December, 2020, Thailand’s Ministry of Labor recently published two regulations under the Social Security Act (SSA) in the Government Gazette: The Regulation on Entitlement to Compensatory Benefits in the Event of Unemployment Due to Force Majeure from the Pandemic of Dangerous Communicable Disease Under Relevant Law Relating to Communicable Diseases B.E. 2563 (2020) (the Force Majeure Regulation); and The Regulation on Determination of the Amount of Contributions to the Social Security Funds B.E. 2563 (2020) (the SSF Contribution Regulation). Details of the two regulations are provided below. The Force Majeure Regulation This regulation is similar to a previous regulation from April, 2020, during the first wave of the pandemic, stating that the definition of force majeure under the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990) (the SSA) includes hazards from pandemics of dangerous communicable diseases (including COVID-19). This definition therefore affords protection to insured persons (i.e., employees) in the event that the COVID-19 pandemic results in their being unable to work, or their employers being unable to operate their business normally. This regulation allows the Social Security Office (SSO) to pay compensation to employees who: are insured persons who qualify to receive compensatory benefit in case of unemployment in accordance with the SSA; have to cease working temporarily during the period from December 19, 2020 onwards; and do not receive wages from their employer during the temporary cessation. This applies only if the circumstances above result from the following force majeure events related to hazards from COVID-19 (or other pandemics of dangerous communicable diseases that affect the public under the Communicable Diseases Act B.E. 2558 (2015)): The employee cannot work, or the employer does not allow the employee to work, because of quarantine or to comply with a COVID-19
Read More
November 3, 2020
Many Thai and international companies have expanded rapidly into Myanmar in recent years, in what had seemed to be an unstoppable expansion of cross-border trade resulting from the country’s emergence back onto the global stage. For those companies, the COVID-19 situation in Myanmar has been a cause for much concern and uncertainty—doubly so for those who had hired staff in the jurisdiction, as a lack of clarity regarding their obligations as employers was compounded by a lack of information on the situation on the ground.
Read More