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

August 17, 2022

Thailand Considers New Labor Law on Work-from-Home Arrangements

Subscribe to Updates

During the COVID-19 crisis, the Thai government asked employers to allow their employees to work from home to prevent infections in the workplace. Working from home subsequently became the norm for employees throughout the country. Now, however, we are in a different phase of the pandemic, and most employers have scrapped the work-from-home protocols. Does this mean work-from-home arrangements are now becoming a thing of the past?

Not so fast. The Thai parliament has recently passed the first reading of the so-called Work from Home Bill, which seeks to amend the country’s Labour Protection Act (LPA) to reflect the current situation. The legislative memorandum accompanying the bill states that the proposed amendments to the LPA will facilitate more flexible employment arrangements and solutions for employers and employees. Interestingly, the memorandum also indicates that the bill further aims to solve the notorious traffic congestion in Bangkok and other cities and reduce energy consumption.

In its current draft, the bill adds a single subsection to the LPA stating that “The employer and the employee may agree in the employment contract” that the employee is allowed “to bring work . . . to perform at home or at residence of the employee.” According to this draft provision, these work-from-home arrangements must be at least eight hours per week and are to be counted as the employee’s normal working time.

The phrase “may agree” suggests that the employer does not have to agree and thus there is no need to add this text to the LPA. However, the intention of the amendment is that the employer must agree if the employee wishes to work from home. During the public hearing on the bill, several parties voiced the concern about the ambiguity of the term “may agree.” It is still unclear what the final wording will be if the law is passed.

Many parties, including the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, do not agree with the bill, as they feel it may create more labor problems. The bill is brief, but it also opens up a lot of questions for employers on how to put this into practice. For example:

  • Will there be exceptions for certain types of work, such as construction, factory operations, cleaning services, restaurants and hospitality services?
  • How can employers monitor worker productivity?
  • How should employers monitor overtime work?
  • Can employees work from a coffee shop instead of their “home” or “residence”?
  • Do employers have to pay for employees’ internet and electricity used to perform work?
  • Can employees bring office equipment and supplies home?
  • How can employers manage occupational safety?

The bill is under consideration by a subcommittee before going through the second reading in the parliament. Many observers expect that the bill will attract heated debate in the second and third readings before going to the Senate.

Related Professionals

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 6, 2026
On October 2, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) issued a new notification on fair trade practices concerning credit terms where large businesses, including large wholesale and retail businesses, purchase goods or services from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The notification will take effect on November 2, 2026. The new notification follows continued complaints from SMEs in Thailand about large businesses’ noncompliance with existing credit-term rules. Businesses and Transactions Covered The notification applies where an SME supplies goods or services on credit to a business with revenue from operations in Thailand of at least THB 500 million in the preceding financial year. The notification divides such purchasing businesses into “large businesses” and “large wholesale and retail businesses.” Wholesale and retail businesses include wholesalers and retailers of consumer goods using modern distribution systems and technologies, whether operating with or without branches or under a franchise arrangement. Examples include hypermarkets, cash-and-carry businesses, supermarkets, specialty stores, department stores, and convenience stores. In determining whether the THB 500 million threshold is met, the revenue of businesses having a relationship in terms of policies or control, establishing a single economic entity (SEE), must be combined. A supplier qualifies as an SME only if it satisfies both employee and annual revenue criteria, depending on the type of SME: Manufacturing businesses: No more than 200 employees and annual revenue not exceeding THB 500 million. Service, wholesale, or retail businesses: No more than 100 employees and annual revenue not exceeding THB 300 million. The notification covers written credit arrangements between SME sellers and large purchasers under which payment for goods or services is made at a later agreed date, including consignment and other forms of transaction. Key Credit-Term Requirements The maximum credit terms remain the same, but unlike the previous credit-term guidelines, which required the
Read More
October 2, 2026
On July 24, 2026, a new 12.5% Section 301 tariff took effect on most imports from Thailand into the United States. The tariff was imposed by the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, following a finding that Thailand had failed to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on imports of goods produced with forced labor. The new tariff replaced the temporary 10% Section 122 surcharge that had applied since February 24, 2026, following the US Supreme Court’s invalidation of the prior tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The 12.5% tariff is not the only potential source of additional US duties on Thai-origin goods. Thailand is also subject to a separate Section 301 investigation concerning structural excess manufacturing capacity, which could result in additional duties. Unlike the Section 122 surcharge, which was capped at 15% and limited to 150 days, Section 301 provides a more flexible framework for imposing and maintaining trade measures. Section 301 actions are generally subject to a four-year termination rule but may continue following a review if continuation is requested. The new tariff therefore represents a potentially longer-term change in the tariff treatment of Thai-origin goods entering the US market. This article explains the legal and policy developments that led to the new tariff, how the Section 301 tariff differs from the tariff regimes that preceded it, Thailand’s response and ongoing negotiations with the United States, and the practical implications for businesses that manufacture, export, import, or distribute goods between Thailand and the United States. From IEEPA to Section 122 to Section 301 IEEPA Era (April 2025–February 2026) Beginning in April 2025, the US administration imposed sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), invoking national emergencies relating to trade
Read More
September 30, 2026
On September 23, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) launched a one-month public consultation period on a proposed notification that would overhaul how antitrust offenses under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) are settled and penalized. The draft notification would replace the existing 2019 settlement framework with more detailed procedures, introduce offense-specific methods for fine calculation, and add tiered deterrence multipliers. Comments may be submitted until October 22, 2026. Restructured Settlement Procedures and Timelines The proposed notification formalizes the settlement process with clearer terminology and mandatory procedural steps. Once the TCCT determines that an accused party has committed an offense that does not warrant imprisonment, the commission would fix the settlement fine amount. The accused would have 15 days from receipt of the summons to appear before the TCCT, though this period may be extended if necessary. If the accused confesses, consents to settlement, and pays the fine within the prescribed period, the criminal case would be closed and the settlement recorded. Refusals would also be recorded for further arrangements, and failure to appear, pay, or consent would result in the TCCT forwarding the case file and its recommendation—along with the accused’s fingerprints—to the public prosecutor. Notably, the draft allows accused parties to request settlement even after the TCCT has recommended prosecution but before the public prosecutor files charges, subject to prosecutorial consent. The draft preserves TCCT discretion to decline settlement where the accused has committed more than three prior offenses or where the violation has substantially impaired free and fair competition, directing such cases directly to prosecution. Fine Calculation Frameworks The proposed notification establishes different fine calculation approaches depending on the type of Trade Competition Act violation. For the most serious offenses (such as abusing market dominance, making anticompetitive agreements, or forming hardcore cartels) the
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More