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 2, 2021

Thai Employment Law: The Employee Committee and the Special Rights of Its Members

Informed Counsel

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 nine-person committee, etc.). Moreover, if a union’s membership accounts for more than 50% of the employees, it is entitled to appoint all employee committee members. Any labor union appointees would have their term begin on the date of their appointment, regardless of when an election is held for the non-union members of the employment committee.

In a situation where a workplace has multiple labor unions that have appointed separate employee committees, exceeding the number of the employee committee members stated by the LRA, the employer is entitled to refuse to recognize the employee committees.

Employers must meet with their employee committee at least once every three months, or whenever the labor union or more than 50% of employee committee members request it. The topics to be discussed include employee welfare, new work rules, employee complaints, and disputes and compromises in the workplace.

If an employee committee considers that an employer has acted unfairly against or caused excessive trouble for employees, the committee (or the relevant employee or the labor union) may lodge a petition with the Labor Court.

Protection of the employee committee

The LRA requires employers to first obtain permission from the Labor Court before terminating the employment of committee members, reducing their wages, taking disciplinary actions against them, otherwise obstructing them from carrying out their duties, or performing any act resulting in a committee member being unable to continue working.  If an employer breaches the LRA by doing one of these things without permission from the court, the employer (including directors or authorized persons who act on behalf of the juristic person) risks facing criminal penalties, such as imprisonment for up to one month, a fine of up to THB 1,000, or both. These penalties will remain even if the employer later succeeds in obtaining permission from the Labor Court to terminate the employee—a position upheld by the Supreme Court because the offense was committed before the court issued an order, thus constituting a violation of the LRA.

This court order requirement extends to any scenario wherein an employee committee member violates company work rules, and the disciplinary action ultimately taken against that employee depends on both the employer’s work rules and the consideration of the court. This means that even if the work rules state that an offence can be punished by termination, the court may still opt to punish the offender less severely than what the rules would otherwise prescribe, particularly if it considers that the offence is not grievous enough to warrant outright termination. (This position is again supported by Supreme Court precedent.) If, on the other hand, the court does issue an order permitting the termination of an employee, any subsequent termination would not be considered an unfair labor practice, and the employee would not be entitled to submit a complaint to the Labor Relations Committee.

Some employers may also be surprised to learn that even if they close down their business permanently and terminate all employees, they must ask the Labor Court for permission to terminate the employee committee as well. Otherwise, the employer may face the criminal penalties described above.

Consequently, an employer should be aware of the potential risks before considering any type of disciplinary or other action against a member of an employee committee, as it can be construed as a violation of the LRA and punished with criminal penalties accordingly. Some might find this difficult to remember when involved in the thick of a labor dispute, a situation of employee wrongdoing, or simply the day-to-day challenges of running a business with a large workforce, but staying in control and acting prudently—with foresight into legal requirements and consequences—can help employers stay on the right side of the law.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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.
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
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.
October 7, 2020
Amendments to Thailand’s Labour Protection Act (LPA) on May 5, 2019, ushered in significant changes to a variety of labour laws, resulting in increased statutory severance pay, increased maternity leave benefits, implementation of paid necessary business leave, changes in wage payments during temporary suspension of business, interest payments for non-payment of wages in certain situations, and new workplace relocation procedures. These changes to the LPA also enhanced employee protections by setting out key amendments to the law governing transfer of employment.