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

October 7, 2020

Transfer of Employment under Thai Labour Laws

Bangkok Post Human Resources Watch

Amendments to Thailand’s Labour Protection Act (LPA) on May 5, 2019, ushered in significant changes to a variety of labour laws, resulting in increased statutory severance pay, increased maternity leave benefits, implementation of paid necessary business leave, changes in wage payments during temporary suspension of business, interest payments for non-payment of wages in certain situations, and new workplace relocation procedures. These changes to the LPA also enhanced employee protections by setting out key amendments to the law governing transfer of employment.

Definition of “Transfer of Employment”

The LPA defines a transfer of employment as a change of employer, including when functions or employees are transferred from one juristic person to another, and when a merger with another juristic person results in a new entity.

It is important to understand the practical impact of this definition, as it may not always be apparent at first glance. For example, under the definition above, both the acquisition of a company by asset purchase and the formation of a new company following a merger between two companies would fall within the scope of a transfer of employment. On the other hand, an acquisition by way of a share purchase would not fall within this scope, because the employment relationship case remains intact, and there is no change of employer.

Employee Consent

As a general principle, an employer may only transfer its rights under an employment agreement to another party with the consent of the employee. While the obligation to obtain prior consent from employees was stipulated in the Thai Civil and Commercial Code, the LPA was silent on the issue until the 2019 amendments. In order to remove previous ambiguities and to afford greater protection to employees, the amended LPA now confirms that before a transfer of employment, the employer must obtain consent from the employees who are to be transferred.

The basic procedures for fulfilling this requirement as part of a business transfer transaction are twofold—firstly informing the employees about the transfer, and secondly, obtaining their consent. The notice to employees must explain the circumstances surrounding the transfer, and it should be sent to the employees well in advance of the effective date of transfer (in order to avoid needing to make payment in lieu of notice if termination becomes necessary). The consent must be written and should be kept for the employer’s record.

If the employees consent to the transfer, the existing employer will have no post-transfer obligations to the employees (except for any liabilities that accrued prior to the transfer). The new employer will assume all the rights and responsibilities owed to the transferred employees by the existing employer. Significantly, the new employer is also required to recognise employees’ continuity of service—in other words, an employee’s start date with the existing employer will be also be observed by the new employer, making for one continuous tenure of service unbroken by the transfer of employment.

Employee consent is also required for the new employer to modify existing rights, wages, benefits, and welfare.  As such, if the new employer wishes to provide new employment terms and conditions that are not the same as those previously agreed upon between the transferred employees and the existing employer, the new employer must obtain further consent and agreement from the transferred employees.

If the employees refuse to consent to the transfer, they would remain employed by the existing employer, and the existing employer would have to either continue employing those employees or terminate their employment.

If the existing employer opts for termination, this would constitute termination without cause, which means the employer would be obligated to do the following:

  • Provide the required advance notice of termination or make payment in lieu of the advance notice period;
  • Pay statutory severance based on each employee’s last wage rate, with the total amount (ranging from 30 days’ to 400 days’ wages) depending on the length of the employee’s service with the employer;
  • Pay wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, and holiday overtime pay accrued through the last day of employment;
  • Compensate employees for their accrued unused annual leave;
  • Return any security deposit that had been paid; and
  • Pay all other payments due under the applicable employment agreement and other applicable terms of employment.

Employees are typically aware of their rights to severance and other payments due upon termination of employment. Therefore, they may refuse to agree to the transfer in order to put pressure on the employer, who would then have to terminate the employees and pay severance and other payments. To avoid these various expenses, employers can offer incentives to the employees for agreeing to a transfer. The incentives could take many forms, such as a one-time bonus, improved post-transfer terms of employment, or negotiation on other aspects of the employer-employee relationship.

Furthermore, the new employer is not allowed to reduce the employees’ remuneration or employment benefits without their consent. This requirement can sometimes result in unexpected obstacles to a transfer of employment, as it might be difficult to determine whether the remuneration and benefits offered by the new employer constitute a reduction or an improvement on those of the existing employer.

The potential ambiguity can be dealt with by undertaking a consent exercise in order to record that each employee agrees to the remuneration and benefit package that they will receive with the new employer. This removes the subjective element of the question, which might be answered differently by each employee, and replaces it with written evidence that the new terms are acceptable and comparable to (or better than) the ones the employees have been enjoying.

This kind of careful planning and execution of the employment transfer process can help avoid or mitigate complications and ensure that employees remain fully on board with the change—a bedrock for the success of company operations.

 

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​ 

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
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].
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
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