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​ 

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
December 19, 2025
On December 12, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Labor published a ministerial regulation prescribing the minimum and maximum wages used as a base for calculating social security contributions. The regulation, which takes effect on January 1, 2026, sets a flat minimum base wage of THB 1,650 per month and a phased increase of the maximum base wage over the following six years, as outlined in the table below. Impact on Social Security Benefits Not only will monthly contributions increase as a result of the adjustment to the maximum wages used as a base for calculating social security contributions, but the maximum benefits available to insured persons will also be enhanced, as shown in the next table. Employer Obligations From January 1, 2026, employers must correctly withhold wages and remit social security contributions for both the employer’s and employees’ portions in compliance with the revised thresholds. Failure to comply may expose employers to penalties under the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990). Employers should ensure that payroll systems are updated as necessary to reflect these changes to the wage ceiling used for social security contribution calculations.