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

January 7, 2020

Thai Labor Law Year in Review

Bangkok Post

In this first Human Resource Watch column of 2020, Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment lawyers take a look back at three of the most common issues that our clients have asked us about over the past year, including some of the most significant recent legal developments and applications that employers in Thailand have been facing.

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act

For many employers, the biggest legal shakeup of the year was the passage of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). The law was published in the Government Gazette on May 27, 2019, kicking-off a one-year grace period for keepers of other people’s personal data (including that of employees) to comply with the regulations.

The PDPA, which is largely based on the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, defines personal data as information that directly or indirectly enables the identification of a living person. It also establishes two roles: the data controller (the one with power to decide to collect, use, or disclose the data) and the data processor (the one who collects, uses, or discloses the data on behalf of the data controller).

In general, consent is needed whenever personal data is collected or used (other than a few exceptions for certain circumstances, purposes, or organizations). A request for consent must also state the purposes of the collection, use, or disclosure. When the data is given to comply with the law or fulfil a contract, the request should state the consequences of withholding the data, the period of retention, and to whom the data may be disclosed, including information on the data controller and contact address, and the rights of the data subject.

For employers, then, separate consent must be obtained from employees if the employment agreement does not already fulfil the consent requirements of the PDPA.

Companies that transfer employees’ personal data overseas—for example, within a multinational corporation or a group of companies—are only exempt from the law’s requirements on international data transfer if the company’s internal policy on sharing personal data covers this type of transfer and has been certified by the Office of the Data Protection Committee. Otherwise, international transfers are only allowed if the destination country has appropriate protections (a phrase not yet defined in law), or if specific consent to do so is obtained.

Non-compliance with the PDPA could lead to severe criminal, civil, and administrative liabilities. These can variously mean hefty fines, damages (both actual and punitive), and even imprisonment. These liabilities apply to employers even if they outsource their human resources work. That is, the employer is still considered the data controller.

One way employers are preparing for the law’s implementation is by reviewing policies, contracts, application forms, and work rules to check compliance; another is by identifying and only handling categories of personal data that the company must collect, use, or disclose. Some employers also provide personal data protection training for employees who regularly handle personal data.

Thai Labor Law on Automation Replacing Workers

Modernization of business processes is a constant consideration for any business, which inevitably raises questions about the impact of machinery or new technology on the workforce. Thailand’s Labour Protection Act provides clear instruction, with section 121 specifically governing the reduction of employee numbers due to the adoption, utilization, or change in machinery or technology, and imposing the following minimum obligations on an employer in that situation:

  1. Give notice of termination to the affected employees at least 60 days in advance. If the employer fails to meet these requirements, the employer must give special severance pay in lieu of notice equivalent to 60 days’ wages at the employees’ last wage rate.
  2. Notify labor inspection officials of the termination date, the reasons for termination, and the names of all the affected employees at least 60 days in advance. Failure to do so can incur penalties against any directors or others authorized to act on behalf of the employer in relation to the particular termination case—which may include human resources personnel.
  3. Pay special severance equivalent to 30–400 days’ salary, depending on the length of employment.
  4. Pay additional special severance. Terminated employees who have worked for the employer for more than six consecutive years must be given additional special severance pay (no less than 15 days’ wages) for each complete year of work beyond the sixth year.

Regardless of these payments, an employer who terminates employees without sufficient and justifiable reason and evidence may still face claims in court for unfair termination. It is therefore essential that employers operate fairly and prudently if they decide to eliminate an employee’s role due to automation or technology. They should also be prepared to prove to the court (1) why the restructuring is required, (2) why the new technology eliminates the employee’s role, and (3) how the employer first attempted to find another position for the employee within the organisation before deciding to terminate employment.

Amendment of Workplace Relocation Rules

In May 2019, amendments to Thailand’s Labour Protection Act broadened the scope of the workplace relocation provisions to cover an employer’s other existing work locations, such as branches. Naturally, many employers wanted to know more about how this affected them.

The updated law also lays out how an employer must inform employees about a relocation, with specific rules about the format, content, posting method, and timing of the notification, which must be made at least 30 days before relocation. If the employer fails to do so, employees are entitled to special severance pay in lieu of advance notice of at least 30 days’ wages at the employee’s last rate.

An employee who does not want to relocate, due to significant impact on the employee or his or her family, may notify the employer that he or she will not relocate within 30 days of the employer’s notification (or of the relocation date if the employer failed to notify). In the required notification was not given, the employer must make special severance payments equivalent to 30–400 days’ wages, depending on the employee’s length of service. An employer who disagrees with an employee’s reasons for refusing to relocate can lodge a complaint with the Labour Welfare Committee.

The law does not provide a definitive list of circumstances that would constitute “significant impact,” but previous cases show that costs, commuting time, family life, health, housing, outside obligations, and special circumstances are all taken into consideration.

Looking Ahead

Learning about new legal developments and applications is key to both employers seeking to operate in accordance with the law and to workers who need to understand their rights. We hope that these common questions from 2019 can help you to fit one (or both) of these categories in 2020.

 

This article was originally published in the Bangkok Post and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. The original story can be viewed on the Bangkok Post website.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 30, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved a draft ministerial regulation introducing significant changes to the calculation of old-age pension and old-age gratuity benefits under the Social Security Fund. The reform would replace the current pension calculation method with a career average revalued earnings (CARE) model designed to better reflect an individual’s lifetime contributions while supporting the long-term financial sustainability of the Social Security Fund. The changes are also intended to improve fairness and align Thailand’s pension framework with international practices. Key proposed changes under the draft ministerial regulation are outlined below. CARE-Based Formula for Old-Age Pension Calculations Currently, old-age pensions are calculated based on the insured person’s average salary over the preceding 60 months. The proposed regulation would replace this approach with the CARE model, under which pension benefits will be calculated based on earnings throughout an individual’s entire working life. Historical earnings will be revalued to reflect their present value before the pension benefit is calculated. According to the Ministry of Labor, this change is intended to better align pension benefits with an individual’s lifetime contribution history and provide a fairer basis for calculating benefits. Pension Accrual Rate for Contributions Exceeding 180 Months Under the current rules, insured persons who contribute for more than 180 months receive an additional pension accrual of 1.5% for each completed 12-month contribution period, with any remaining months disregarded. The proposed regulation would instead calculate the additional accrual on a monthly basis at a rate of 0.125% of actual monthly contributions; this aims to make pension benefits more accurately reflect the actual duration of each individual’s contribution history. Transitional Protections for Insured Persons The draft regulation includes transitional protections for both existing pension recipients and those who will become eligible within five years of the CARE model taking effect. For existing recipients, the following protections
June 4, 2026
On May 19, 2026, the Cabinet of the Royal Thai Government approved, in principle, revisions to Thailand’s visa exemption scheme and visa on arrival (VOA) program, as proposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. The revisions represent a tightening of Thailand’s immigration framework and will affect a broad range of short-term visitors. Background On July 15, 2024, Thailand expanded its visa exemption scheme by increasing the permitted period of visa-exempt stay from 30 days to 60 days in order to promote tourism, support the country’s post-pandemic economic recovery, and facilitate international travel. Under this revised scheme, passport holders from 93 countries and territories (an increase from the previous 57 countries and territories) have been permitted to enter Thailand without a visa and remain in the country for up to 60 days per entry for purposes including tourism, business engagements, urgent work, and ad hoc assignments. In addition, eligible visitors may apply at the Thai Immigration Bureau for a further 30-day extension of stay. Key Changes The proposed revisions would revoke the current 60-day exemption and reinstate the previous stay period, thereby reducing the maximum permitted stay for eligible travelers to 30 days per entry. In addition, the number of countries and territories eligible under the 30-day visa-exemption scheme is expected to be reduced to 54. The scope of the VOA scheme would likewise be significantly narrowed, with the number of eligible countries reduced from 31 countries to just four (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, and India). Further, Thailand is expected to introduce a new 15-day visa exemption category for nationals of Seychelles, the Maldives, and Mauritius. The revised framework would also limit each country or territory to a single visa exemption privilege in order to simplify Thailand’s immigration framework and reduce overlapping immigration privileges.
April 29, 2026
Vietnam’s education sector is entering a new regulatory era. On December 10, 2025, the National Assembly adopted a series of new and amended laws in the field of education, including the 2025 Law on Vocational Education, the 2025 Law on Higher Education, and the amended Law on Education No. 123/2025/QH15 (Amended Law on Education). These laws together took effect on January 1, 2026, marking a significant reform of Vietnam’s legal framework governing the education sector. The legislative package introduces a new lawmaking approach under which foundational and principle-based provisions are codified in the Amended Law on Education, while the Law on Higher Education and the Law on Vocational Education serve as specialized statutes providing supplementary, sector-specific regulatory detail tailored to their respective subsectors. The Amended Law on Education fundamentally restructures how educational institutions are established, governed, and licensed, with direct implications for private investors, foreign-invested entities, and education service providers operating in Vietnam. Below are several highlights of the key changes under the amended law, especially in the private sector, that stakeholders should understand: Change in the National Education System In addition to primary education, lower secondary (junior high school) education is now compulsory in Vietnam. Accordingly, diplomas are no longer awarded upon completion of lower secondary school but only for upper education levels. The national education system is also expanded through the introduction of vocational high school as a new level of vocational education. Such reform creates additional learning pathways that not only enable learners to pursue both further education and participate in the labor market, but also better align education and training with socioeconomic development needs. New Hurdle for Joint Investors: Mandatory Corporate Entity Requirement Where two or more investors jointly establish an education institution, the investors are no longer permitted to directly establish such an institution.
March 31, 2026
Against the backdrop of Vietnam’s rapid economic and technological transformation and its ambition to build a knowledge-driven economy, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Higher Education No. 125/2025/QH15 on December 10, 2025, The new law took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Higher Education No. 08/2012/QH13 of 2012 and its subsequent amendments after more than a decade of implementation. The new law reflects a significant policy shift toward enhancing the institutional autonomy of higher education institutions (“HEIs”)—universities and other university-level institutions. By granting broader autonomy, Vietnam aims to enable HEIs to operate more proactively, better respond to market needs, and improve the quality and efficiency of education and research activities. Comprehensive Institutional Autonomy in HEIs The new law marks a significant shift by granting HEIs comprehensive autonomy as a statutory right, within the bounds of the licensed scope of educational operation and the legal framework, rather than a conditional right as provided under the former law. Under the new law, HEIs are empowered to exercise autonomy over their academic expertise, training, scientific research, international cooperation, organizational structure, personnel, finance, and other higher education activities. The expansion of institutional autonomy is also accompanied by a correspondingly strengthened framework of institutional accountability. However, Vietnam maintains a certain degree of control and imposes restrictions on institutional autonomy in sensitive and strategically important areas. These controls and restrictions include limitations on training autonomy in the majors of teacher training, national defense, and security; and restrictions on financial and personnel management autonomy for HEIs under the administration of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Public Security. New Model for Curriculum Development The new law removes the concept of “opening a training major” and focuses regulation on how training programs are developed and delivered. Under the previous regime,