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

September 30, 2025

Thailand’s Employee Committees and Their Statutory Protection

Subscribe to Updates

Over the past several years, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, Thai employees and labor unions have faced reductions in benefits and welfare from their employers. Consequently, they have pursued various strategies to enhance their compensation packages. One such approach involves establishing employee committees to negotiate with employers regarding benefits and welfare. Additionally, companies with existing unions typically nominate representatives to serve on these employee committees. Many employers, however, remain unfamiliar with both the committee’s role and the heightened procedural requirements that apply when disciplinary measures are contemplated against committee members. Because any violation of a committee member’s statutory rights can expose the employer—and its directors or authorized representatives—to criminal liability, a clear understanding of the relevant legal framework is essential.

The Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 (LRA) provides the statutory foundation for establishing employee committees. The purpose of the committee is to promote harmonious industrial relations and create a formal channel through which employees and employers can discuss workplace matters on a regular basis.

Any workplace that employs at least fifty employees must, upon request by employees or the labor union, facilitate the creation of a committee. Members may be elected directly by employees or, where applicable, appointed by the labor union. Each member serves a three-year term. The LRA prescribes minimum committee sizes based on the employer’s headcount, as shown in the table below.

If union members constitute more than 20 percent of the total workforce, the union must appoint at least one more committee member than the number of nonunion members elected by the general workforce. If union membership exceeds 50 percent of the workforce, the union acquires the exclusive right to appoint every committee member. Where multiple unions exist and their combined appointments would exceed the statutory committee size, the employer may lawfully refuse to recognize the excess appointees.

Employees appointed by the union assume office on the date of appointment, even if the election of nonunion members has not yet occurred.

The employer must meet with the committee at least once every three months, or sooner if requested by the union or by more than half of the committee members for reasonable cause, to address:

  • Provision and improvement of employee welfare;
  • Formulation or amendment of work rules;
  • Employee complaints; and
  • Settlement of workplace disputes.

If the committee deems any employer action unfair or unduly burdensome to employees, the committee, an individual employee, or the union may file a petition with the Labor Court for relief.

Special Protections for Committee Members

The LRA prohibits employers from dismissing, reducing the wages of, imposing disciplinary sanctions against, or otherwise obstructing a committee member in the performance of their duties—and from taking any action that would render the member unable to continue working—without first obtaining permission from the Labor Court. Noncompliance constitutes a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment of up to one month, a fine of up to THB 1,000 (approx. USD 30), or both. Supreme Court precedent confirms that these penalties attach immediately upon the unlawful act; a subsequent court order authorizing the dismissal does not cure the prior violation.

The court-approval requirement applies even when the member has breached company work rules. Although the employer may seek the committee member’s dismissal based on such misconduct, the court retains discretion to impose a lesser penalty if it finds termination disproportionate to the offense. Conversely, once the court has authorized termination, the dismissal does not constitute an unfair labor practice, and the employee is barred from filing a complaint with the Labor Relations Committee.

In light of these provisions, employers should proceed with caution when contemplating any disciplinary or obstructive measure against a committee member. Compliance with the LRA’s procedural safeguards is paramount to avoid exposure to criminal liability and ensure lawful continuation of business operations.

Related Professionals

Practices

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 3, 2023
Most employers know that terminating employees for poor job performance is not easy. But it is actually legally possible—if employers have the right approach and take specific precautionary measures. However, failing to take these precautions can mean that an employer is either stuck with an incompetent employee or on the losing end of a lawsuit for unfair termination. This article will lay out some essential considerations for employers in Thailand regarding termination of employment for poor performance. First, understand that “poor work performance” is a lack of performance or ability, or an inability to work with other employees. It does not constitute a violation of work rules or regulations. In some cases, however, an employee’s failure to act in accordance with lawful instructions or commands of the employer, resulting in poor work performance, could also be considered a violation of work rules or regulations. This may be the case if the work rules or regulations clearly state that an employee must strictly comply with the employer’s instructions or commands. Second, an employer can, in fact, terminate an employee due to poor work performance. For example, this may be possible in the following scenarios: Records show that an employee’s work performance has fallen below the employer’s required standards, and the employee has not tried to improve his or her work performance for three consecutive years. In addition, it does not appear that the employer was biased when giving ratings or scores for the employee’s work performance. The job description of the employee includes coordination with employees in other departments, but the employee has not been able to do so. Therefore, the employee was reassigned to a new job function, but the employee still did not improve. This suggests that the employee has a lack of interpersonal skills and is not
Read More
March 23, 2023
On March 19, 2023, Thailand’s new work-from-home (WFH) legislation amending the Labour Protection Act (No. 8) B.E. 2566 (2023) was published in the Government Gazette. It will come into effect on April 18, 2023. The amendment aims to enhance employee protections to accord with current global standards, provide alternative working arrangements for employers and employees, increase workforce efficiency, and strengthen employees’ job security and a better quality of life. As we detailed previously, the new WFH legislation allows employers and employees to reach agreements that permit employees to work remotely. Since there are no accompanying criminal punishments relating to this new provision, and the legislation incorporates the term “may agree,” it appears that this WFH provision is not mandatory but is primarily intended to facilitate and encourage remote working agreements between employers and employees. For more details on the WFH legislation, or on any aspect of employment law in Thailand, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
Read More
February 24, 2023
Many companies have moved to Southeast Asia to benefit from the advantages of this vibrant and diverse market. The region is already a manufacturing hub for a multitude of industries—computer and automotive products in Thailand, textiles in Cambodia, and footwear and electrical goods in Vietnam, to name a few—and an increasing number of companies worldwide are reconfiguring their supply chains to include regional suppliers. A key challenge is keeping up to date with employment law trends in these jurisdictions to ensure compliance with local regulations—and avoid costly, time-consuming business interruption. Here we outline trends and recent regulatory developments in Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam, and consider what they mean for employers. Cambodia The Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training (MLVT) is likely to pursue a more proactive enforcement strategy in 2023. Last May, the MLVT announced companies would be required to submit a twice yearly self-declaration on labour compliance through a new online system. The self-declaration form requires companies to confirm and upload evidence of compliance, and the MLVT online system—through which the ministry can easily determine if a company is compliant –generates a report that lists all fines. Companies should comply with the self-declaration requirement and carefully review the form to understand what fines will apply for non-compliance. On 1 October 2022, regulations relating to the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) pension system came into effect, and employers and employees began making NSSF pension contributions. Over the next five years, total compulsory pension contributions will amount to 4% of an employee’s wage, half of which is paid by the employer and half deducted from the employee’s salary. The contribution wage is capped at KHR 1.2m (USD 300). Employers are currently required to pay a relatively small amount (KHR 24,000, or around USD 6). This will increase to 10.75% over
Read More
January 19, 2023
The Thai parliament has passed the so-called Work from Home Bill—formally known as Labour Protection Act (No. 8) B.E. 2566 (2023)—which amends the country’s Labour Protection Act (LPA) to reflect current circumstances. The accompanying legislative remark states that the proposed amendments to the LPA will provide additional options for work arrangements between employers and employees, upgrade the level of labor protection, increase work stability, and improve quality of life for employees in Thailand. The legislation adds a single section to the LPA providing that an employer and an employee “may agree in the employment contract” that the employee is allowed “to bring work . . . to perform at home or at the residence of the employee or anywhere that the employee can work remotely through information technology, if the nature of the work permits.” The provision further provides that employers are responsible for ensuring that remote work agreements are in writing, either physically or electronically, and may include the following details: Period of the agreement; Normal working hours, rest periods, and overtime work; Criteria for overtime work, holiday work, and various types of leave; Scope of work and control or supervision by the employer; and Responsibility for arranging supplies and equipment, including necessary costs relating to the work. The amended LPA gives employees who work from home the right to refuse contact from the employer or the supervisor beyond working hours. In addition, employers must treat remote employees equally to on-premise employees. The most notable question surrounding this legislation is whether employers must allow employees to work remotely. The phrase “may agree” suggests that employers do not have to agree to allow an employee to work remotely. Another important aspect of the amendment is that there is no criminal punishment attached to it, which suggests that the legislation
Read More