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​ 

July 7, 2025
On June 20, 2025, Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance issued Instruction No. 19116 to clarify when board members and company directors must receive salaries and pay payroll taxes. Board members and company directors who are not considered employees are subject to a withholding tax. This category consists of people who complete services for a nonresident individual and people who perform independent work for a company in Cambodia. Board members and company directors who are considered employees, including those appointed by a foreign head office to temporarily manage a company in Cambodia, must pay payroll taxes on any salary they receive, regardless of whether they are paid by a local or foreign branch of the company. The above obligations apply regardless of whether the person has a work permit. Board members and company directors are exempt from paying payroll tax if they: Are not present and not performing a regular management role at the company despite being registered on the company’s statutes or patent tax card; Participate only in board meetings and occasional shareholder meetings; and Do not receive a salary from a company in Cambodia. Overall, this instruction provides an important clarification regarding the tax obligations of board members and company directors. Companies should pay attention to the classification of their board members and directors and be mindful of the exemption.   This article was written with the assistance of Tilleke & Gibbins interns Amelia Gemma Erickson and Amrin Keat.
July 7, 2025
On June 27, 2025, Thailand issued the new Ministerial Regulation Prescribing the Criteria and Rates for Receiving Unemployment Benefits (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025), which amended a similarly named ministerial regulation by boosting the rate of social security benefits to alleviate hardships for employees who are terminated. The new ministerial regulation took effect the following day. Under this new ministerial regulation, eligible terminated employees are entitled to receive unemployment benefits under the Social Security Fund (SSF) for a maximum of 180 days per year, at the rate of 60% of the employee’s monthly wages at the time of termination, up from 50% previously. However, the maximum wage used as the basis for calculating the benefit remains capped at THB 15,000 per month. Therefore, the maximum unemployment benefit that an employee can receive from the SSF is now THB 9,000 (up from THB 7,500) per month for a period of up to six months. To qualify for the unemployment benefits from the SSF, employees must be registered with the Social Security Office and must have contributed to the SSF for at least six months within the 15 months prior to the start date of the relevant unemployment period. This new ministerial regulation was enacted to increase the amount of financial support provided to insured persons in the case of termination, as part of the government’s objective of alleviating economic hardship under current economic and social conditions in Thailand. For more details on unemployment benefits in Thailand, or on any aspect of employment law in the country, please contact Pimvimol (June) Vipamaneerut at [email protected], Dusita Khanijou at [email protected], Ketnut Pukahuta at [email protected], or Chomanut Arif at [email protected].
July 4, 2025
On July 1, 2025, new minimum daily wage rates for Bangkok and certain business types nationwide were published in the Government Gazette, taking effect on the same day. The daily minimum wage rate for Bangkok has been increased to THB 400 per day, while the minimum wage rates for other provinces remain unchanged from the rates that took effect on January 1, 2025. However, daily minimum wage rates have also been increased to THB 400 nationwide for type 2, type 3, and type 4 hotels under the Hotel Act and for entertainment establishments under the Entertainment Place Act. This THB 400 rate applies to all businesses that meet the criteria, even if the province’s general rate is lower. The new minimum wage rates supersede any lower wages agreed upon in existing employment contracts or conditions of employment that were in force before this announcement came into effect. As a result, these employees must be paid their wages at the newly prescribed rate for work performed from July 1, 2025, onward.
June 30, 2025
On March 4, 2025, Cambodia’s Ministry of Labor and Vocational Training (MLVT) issued Prakas No. 073/25 on Procedures for Resolving Individual Labor Disputes, replacing Prakas No. 318 on the same topic from 2001 and introducing significant changes to how individual labor disputes are filed, processed, and escalated. In addition, Prakas No. 073 outlines the roles and responsibilities of labor inspectors, the process for filing and handling complaints, and the steps for conciliation and further legal recourse, as described below. Filing a Complaint Any party to an individual labor dispute can file a complaint with the Labor Dispute Department of the MLVT or the Department of Labor at the capital or provincial level. Upon receiving a complaint, a labor inspector will review the case and may initiate either conciliation or a labor inspection. Invitation letters will be issued to the disputing parties to provide relevant information and documents. Conciliation Process Prakas No. 073 places strong emphasis on the conciliation process, introducing strict procedural rules and deadlines with clear consequences for noncompliance: If the claimant fails to provide required information within the specified deadline (or within three working days thereafter without reasonable excuse), the complaint is deemed void. If the respondent fails to attend the conciliation meeting within the deadline (or within three working days thereafter without reasonable excuse), the conciliation is considered unsuccessful, and the respondent is deemed guilty as claimed. Once all necessary information is gathered, a labor inspector will invite both parties to a joint conciliation meeting, which must be held within three weeks of the complaint being received. If the claimant fails to attend the meeting or sign the minutes without a reasonable excuse, the complaint is void. If the respondent fails to attend the meeting without a reasonable excuse, the conciliation is unsuccessful, and the respondent