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 8, 2013

Termination of Employees: Counting the Cost

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

In the face of the weak global economy, businesses in Thailand have suffered an additional burden caused by local factors such as catastrophic flooding and political unrest. These combined stresses have tested many businesses to the breaking point, and restructuring of operations has become commonplace for businesses seeking to survive the harsh economic climate.

Any restructuring inevitably raises the question of termination of employees. Employers therefore need to understand the principles for termination in accordance with Thai law, enabling them to estimate the likely cost to the business of such measures and to avoid costly complaints of unfair termination being lodged with the Ministry of Labor or the Labor Court.

Severance

The Labor Protection Act requires an employer to pay severance to an employee for termination unless the employee has committed one of the following acts:

  1. Conducts his or her duties dishonestly or intentionally commits a criminal offense against the employer.
  2. Intentionally causes damage against the employer.
  3. Performs an act of negligence that causes the employer to suffer severe losses.
  4. Repeatedly violates the employer’s work rules or regulations or orders that are legal and fair, where the employer has already given a written warning (except for serious violations of work rules for which the employer is not required to give warning). Note that the written warning shall be effective for a period of one year from the date of the commission of the violation by the employee.
  5. Neglects his or her duties for a period of three consecutive workdays without reasonable cause regardless of whether there is an intervening holiday during such period.
  6. Is imprisoned by a final judgment unless the offenses arise out of negligent acts or are considered petty.

Among these, the fourth option allows the termination of an employee without payment of severance and without issuance of a warning letter in instances where there is a serious violation of an employer’s work rules, which is a matter to be determined by the courts.

Examples of violations the Supreme Court has found to be “serious” in the past include gambling on the employer’s premises in or out of working time and using the employer’s property to work for the employee’s personal business during working time. Conversely, tearing up or refusing to sign or acknowledge a warning letter issued by the employer has been found not to be a serious violation.

In most cases of termination due to restructuring, severance pay will be due, in an amount determined by statute, which varies from 30 to 300 days’ pay, depending on length of service.

Pay in Lieu of Advance Notice

The Labor Protection Act requires an employer who wishes to terminate an employee (where there is no fixed period of employment) to provide advance notice of at least one payment cycle before any termination is to take effect. If the employer fails to provide notice as required, the employer must pay remuneration in lieu of advance notice.

However, an employer is exempt from paying remuneration if the employee:

  • Disobeys or habitually neglects the lawful commands of the employer;
  • Is absent from service; or
  • Is guilty of gross misconduct or otherwise acts in a manner incompatible with the due and faithful discharge of his or her duties—for example, by operating a business in competition with the employer.

Again, in cases of termination due to business restructuring, advance notice or payment in lieu thereof will therefore normally be due.

Compensation for Unfair Termination

An employee who has been terminated unfairly may claim compensation or seek an order for reinstatement from the court. There is no statutory definition for unfair termination, and the court will consider the grounds for termination of the employee on a case-by-case basis. But if an employer has justifiable grounds, the termination will generally be considered fair.

Examples of circumstances determined in the past by the court to be justifiable grounds for fair termination include where the employer has suffered loss and where the employer faces financial crisis. In many cases, the court will likely view termination due to restructuring as a justifiable ground, in which case no liability for unfair termination compensation should arise.

Accordingly, in most terminations arising from business restructuring, employers will not have to pay compensation for unfair termination but should budget for the costs of severance pay and pay in lieu of advance notice (unless the exceptions listed above apply).

Nonetheless, employees may still attempt to bring claims in the Labor Court seeking additional compensation, so employers should consider carefully whether they can substantiate their reasons for the termination, and ensure that the correct legal procedures are followed before taking any action.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 3, 2023
Most employers know that terminating employees for poor job performance is not easy. But it is actually legally possible—if employers have the right approach and take specific precautionary measures. However, failing to take these precautions can mean that an employer is either stuck with an incompetent employee or on the losing end of a lawsuit for unfair termination. This article will lay out some essential considerations for employers in Thailand regarding termination of employment for poor performance. First, understand that “poor work performance” is a lack of performance or ability, or an inability to work with other employees. It does not constitute a violation of work rules or regulations. In some cases, however, an employee’s failure to act in accordance with lawful instructions or commands of the employer, resulting in poor work performance, could also be considered a violation of work rules or regulations. This may be the case if the work rules or regulations clearly state that an employee must strictly comply with the employer’s instructions or commands. Second, an employer can, in fact, terminate an employee due to poor work performance. For example, this may be possible in the following scenarios: Records show that an employee’s work performance has fallen below the employer’s required standards, and the employee has not tried to improve his or her work performance for three consecutive years. In addition, it does not appear that the employer was biased when giving ratings or scores for the employee’s work performance. The job description of the employee includes coordination with employees in other departments, but the employee has not been able to do so. Therefore, the employee was reassigned to a new job function, but the employee still did not improve. This suggests that the employee has a lack of interpersonal skills and is not
Read More
March 23, 2023
On March 19, 2023, Thailand’s new work-from-home (WFH) legislation amending the Labour Protection Act (No. 8) B.E. 2566 (2023) was published in the Government Gazette. It will come into effect on April 18, 2023. The amendment aims to enhance employee protections to accord with current global standards, provide alternative working arrangements for employers and employees, increase workforce efficiency, and strengthen employees’ job security and a better quality of life. As we detailed previously, the new WFH legislation allows employers and employees to reach agreements that permit employees to work remotely. Since there are no accompanying criminal punishments relating to this new provision, and the legislation incorporates the term “may agree,” it appears that this WFH provision is not mandatory but is primarily intended to facilitate and encourage remote working agreements between employers and employees. For more details on the WFH legislation, or on any aspect of employment law in Thailand, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
Read More
February 24, 2023
Many companies have moved to Southeast Asia to benefit from the advantages of this vibrant and diverse market. The region is already a manufacturing hub for a multitude of industries—computer and automotive products in Thailand, textiles in Cambodia, and footwear and electrical goods in Vietnam, to name a few—and an increasing number of companies worldwide are reconfiguring their supply chains to include regional suppliers. A key challenge is keeping up to date with employment law trends in these jurisdictions to ensure compliance with local regulations—and avoid costly, time-consuming business interruption. Here we outline trends and recent regulatory developments in Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam, and consider what they mean for employers. Cambodia The Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training (MLVT) is likely to pursue a more proactive enforcement strategy in 2023. Last May, the MLVT announced companies would be required to submit a twice yearly self-declaration on labour compliance through a new online system. The self-declaration form requires companies to confirm and upload evidence of compliance, and the MLVT online system—through which the ministry can easily determine if a company is compliant –generates a report that lists all fines. Companies should comply with the self-declaration requirement and carefully review the form to understand what fines will apply for non-compliance. On 1 October 2022, regulations relating to the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) pension system came into effect, and employers and employees began making NSSF pension contributions. Over the next five years, total compulsory pension contributions will amount to 4% of an employee’s wage, half of which is paid by the employer and half deducted from the employee’s salary. The contribution wage is capped at KHR 1.2m (USD 300). Employers are currently required to pay a relatively small amount (KHR 24,000, or around USD 6). This will increase to 10.75% over
Read More
January 19, 2023
The Thai parliament has passed the so-called Work from Home Bill—formally known as Labour Protection Act (No. 8) B.E. 2566 (2023)—which amends the country’s Labour Protection Act (LPA) to reflect current circumstances. The accompanying legislative remark states that the proposed amendments to the LPA will provide additional options for work arrangements between employers and employees, upgrade the level of labor protection, increase work stability, and improve quality of life for employees in Thailand. The legislation adds a single section to the LPA providing that an employer and an employee “may agree in the employment contract” that the employee is allowed “to bring work . . . to perform at home or at the residence of the employee or anywhere that the employee can work remotely through information technology, if the nature of the work permits.” The provision further provides that employers are responsible for ensuring that remote work agreements are in writing, either physically or electronically, and may include the following details: Period of the agreement; Normal working hours, rest periods, and overtime work; Criteria for overtime work, holiday work, and various types of leave; Scope of work and control or supervision by the employer; and Responsibility for arranging supplies and equipment, including necessary costs relating to the work. The amended LPA gives employees who work from home the right to refuse contact from the employer or the supervisor beyond working hours. In addition, employers must treat remote employees equally to on-premise employees. The most notable question surrounding this legislation is whether employers must allow employees to work remotely. The phrase “may agree” suggests that employers do not have to agree to allow an employee to work remotely. Another important aspect of the amendment is that there is no criminal punishment attached to it, which suggests that the legislation
Read More