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​ 

May 10, 2021
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins’ offices in Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam have contributed chapters on labor law in these jurisdictions to the Global Employment Law Guide, published by Lex Mundi. The guide provides answers to key employment-related legal questions in 57 jurisdictions around the world, with all entries provided by member firms in the global Lex Mundi legal network. Each chapter contains in-depth information on the jurisdiction’s legal framework governing employment relationships, including coverage of the following topics: Employment categories and contract types Employee rights and protections Employment termination Leave and social benefits Restrictive covenants COVID-19 vaccination mandates and post-pandemic workplace reopening Readers can browse the contributions, generate country-specific reports, and compare attorney-client privilege in multiple jurisdictions. For more information, please visit the Lex Mundi website.
Read More
March 2, 2021
Maintaining positive employee relations is a top concern for virtually all companies. Many companies in Thailand—especially those located in the country’s industrial estates—have labor unions, while others rely on other non-union pathways for attending to the concerns of employees. In all of these cases, the union or collective group of employees also chooses members of the “employee committee” that is charged with fostering good relations and open communications with the employer through regular meetings dedicated to discussion of workplace matters. Companies with a workforce of 50 or more employees need to understand the roles of the employee committee and the specific rights accorded to the committee members, which are different from the rights of the other employees. Besides the obvious benefits that this understanding has for relations with their employees, it is also important if an employer takes disciplinary action against employee committee members, as violation of a committee member’s rights could result in the employer facing criminal penalties. The legal basis for these employee committees is the Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 (LRA), which stipulates that in any workplace with at least 50 employees, the employees or their labor union of the business establishment is entitled to establish an employee committee. Members are elected (or, in the case of a labor union, appointed) to three-year terms on the committee, with the total number of committee members depending on the size of the workforce, as shown in the table. Membership Requirements Among partially unionized workforces, labor unions are generally given precedence when it comes to control of the committee. If a labor union whose members account for more than 20% of the total employees in a workplace, the union gets to appoint the majority of the employee committee members (e.g., four out of a seven-person committee, five of a
Read More
February 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension
Read More