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

December 3, 2019

Unfair Labor Practices: What Employers Need to Be Aware Of

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post: Human Resources Watch

While most employers understand what “unfair termination” means, many may be unfamiliar with the term “unfair labor practice” and what it entails. The Labor Relations Act (LRA) gives three general categories of conduct considered to be unfair labor practices: retaliation, wrongful pressure, and termination while under collective bargaining agreements.

Retaliation

Actions deemed retaliation are prohibited. These include the following scenarios:

  • Termination or doing anything that results in employees, employee representatives, or committee members of labor unions or labor federations being no longer able to work with the employer while the labor union or employees take steps to prepare petitions, submit labor demands, or sue or give evidence to officers under labor protection laws.
  • Termination or doing anything that results in the employee no longer able to work with the employer because of labor union membership.
  • Hindering employees from holding labor union membership or asking employees to resign from union membership.
  • Giving (or promising) money or property to employees either to not apply or to resign from union membership; also prohibited are such gifts or promises to a labor union officer to not accept employee membership applications.
  • Hindering a labor union or labor federation from conducting activities, or hindering employees from exercising their rights as union members.
  • Interfering in a labor union’s or labour federation’s activities without legal authority.

Wrongful pressure

An example of wrongful pressure would be an employer directly or indirectly forcing an employee to be a union member or resign from union membership. The concept of wrongful pressure can also be connected to issues of retaliation—that is, doing anything that leads to the employer committing one of the actions detailed in the previous section.

Termination under collective bargaining agreements

While a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between employees or a labor union and employers is in effect, the employer is prohibited from terminating anyone who is involved with labor demands. This includes employees, labor union committee and subcommittee members, employee representatives, and committee and subcommittee members of labor federations. However, exceptions to this rule exist if an employee commits one of the following offenses:

  • Performs duties dishonestly or intentionally commits a criminal offense against the employer.
  • Intentionally causes serious damage against the employer.
  • Through negligence causes serious damage against the employer.
  • Violates work rules or regulations, or disobeys orders that are legal and fair, despite having already been given a written warning by the employer (though the written warning requirement is waived for serious matters).
  • Abandons his or her duties for a period of three consecutive work days without reasonable cause.
  • Acts in any manner that supports or induces violation of a CBA or an order of a labour dispute arbitrator.

If an employer has need to terminate an employee for reasons other than the grounds listed above, the employer can terminate the employee even while the CBA is in effect. For example, if an employer suffers losses and cannot operate the business of a particular department, the termination is not an unfair labour practice (in fact, this very issue came up in a case before the Supreme Court in 2005). Another example—which again has been at issue in a case before the Supreme Court—would be the termination of an employee who has health problems and takes too many sick days in a year. In this situation, terminating the employee while the CBA is in effect is also not considered an unfair labor practice.

Procedural requirements

If anyone commits an unfair labor practice, the aggrieved person can submit a complaint to the Labor Relations Committee (LRC) within 60 days from the date of the violation. The LRC then needs to consider the complaint and issue an order within 90 days of receiving it. This step is crucial – if a person submits a petition to the labor court accusing another party of committing an unfair labor practice without having first proceeded with the LRC, the court must dismiss the petition.

The LRC will investigate the facts and evidence from both parties and will then issue an order – either dismissing the complaint (if the court believes the accusation is not true) or ordering the employer to take action to rectify or make amends for the unfair labor practice. This often takes the form of forcing an employer to reinstate a terminated employee or compensate the employee or concerned persons.

If a violator does not comply with an LRC order within a deadline stated by LRC, the violator will face criminal penalties such as imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to THB 10,000, or both.

In addition, if the LRC finds that an employer committed an unfair labor practice, and also orders the employer to reinstate the employee, the employer can petition the labor court to revoke the LRC’s order. However, if the court considers that the employer committed an unfair labor practice and the employee can no longer work with the employer, the court may order the employer to pay compensation to the employee instead of reinstatement.

 

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 Professionals

Practices

Employment

Location

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.
Read More
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.
Read More
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
Read More
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.
Read More