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

July 29, 2020

Thailand: Redefining force majeure under the Social Security Act

Taylor Vinters – International Employment Law Update

Whilst employers who choose to temporarily cease operations are required to continue paying at least 75% of their employees’ wages; the Social Security Office (“SSO”) has put additional measures in place to protect those employees further who are unable to work during this time. On 17 April 2020, Thailand’s Ministry of Labour published two new regulations, the Force Majeure Regulation and the Economic Crisis Regulation respectively.

The Force Majeure Regulation

The SSO has redefined force majeure under the Social Security Act (“SSA”) to include hazards from the COVID-19 pandemic, which impact employers and/or employees severely enough that the employer cannot operate its business normally and the employee is unable to work. This amendment to the SSA allows the SSO to compensate employees who:

  • are insured and eligible to receive unemployment benefits;
  • have to stop working temporarily between March 1 and August 31 2020 (the “Relevant Period”);
  • are not receiving wages from their employer during the temporary cessation; and
  • whose employment has not been terminated.

Such eligible employees are only entitled to compensation from the SSO under the following circumstances:

  • the employee has to cease working because they’re required to quarantine, or to comply with a COVID-19 preventive measure; or
  • the employee has been asked by their employer to cease work because they must quarantine, or because the employer must comply with a COVID-19 preventive measure; or
  • force majeure (in this case COVID-19) causes the employer to decide to temporarily cease normal business operations, partially or wholly, or to comply with an order relating to the communicable diseases or emergency public administration laws.

Under the Force Majeure Regulation, employees are entitled to a rate of compensation of 62% of their daily wages during the Relevant Period, up to a maximum of 90 days.

The Economic Crisis Regulation

Employees who are insured under the SSA are entitled to receive benefits during periods of unemployment between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2022 caused by the economic crisis, as follows:

  • 70% of their daily wages, up to 200 days per termination where employment is terminated by their employer; or
  • 45% of their daily wages, up to a maximum of 90 days per unemployment period where they resign or where their fixed-term employment contract expires and is not renewed.

In order to qualify under this regulation, the employee must be registered with the SSO and have contributed to the Social Security Fund for at least six months in the 15 months prior to the start date of the relevant unemployment period. From March until the end May 2020, employers and employees have also been taking advantage of the reduced rates of contribution to the Social Security Fund. For the purposes of calculating SSO compensation under both regulations, the maximum daily wage is capped at THB 15,000 per month.

Comment

In addition to the benefits available under the SSA as a result of COVID-19, many employers have also been negotiating terms separately with their employees to find ways of dealing with the impact of the pandemic.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 16, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Yangon has contributed the Myanmar chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Myanmar chapter was prepared by Kyaw Min Tun, an associate in the firm’s Myanmar office. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Myanmar chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Vientiane have contributed the Laos chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Laos chapter was prepared by associates Naiyane Xaechao and Sayphin Singsouvong. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Laos chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Phnom Penh have contributed the Cambodia chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Cambodia chapter was authored by Jay Cohen, partner and director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office, and Chanvisal Lok, associate. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Cambodia chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the