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

August 26, 2021

Workplace Reopening: Mandates and Other Safety Measures under Thai Law

Subscribe to Updates

Around the world, COVID-19 is continuing to threaten the health of millions, interrupt daily life, and throttle business activity. In Thailand, the latest wave of infections has been more intense than any since the beginning of the pandemic, and many businesses have been forced to close down once again. There are reasons for hope though—chief among them the increasing pace of vaccinations. Not only are the vaccines effective at preventing serious health issues, they are helping keep both employees and customers safe in business settings so that commerce, trade, and tourism can resume once again.

Many in Thailand have already been vaccinated, and struggling employers are looking ahead to safely resuming full business activities, from reopening offices for employees who have been working from home, to welcoming customers and clients back to an environment that minimizes the risk of COVID-19 exposure.

In anticipation of such a return to business at full capacity, many Thai employers are taking note of companies and organizations overseas boosting COVID-19 safety in workplaces by mandating vaccines and other measures, and asking whether such mandates could be imposed here in Thailand.

The main legal concept to consider here is the provision in the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998), which authorizes employers to issue “lawful and just” orders to employees. For an order to be “lawful and just,” it must be proportionate to the circumstance. In the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers can refer to the Communicable Diseases Act B.E. 2558 (2015), as well as other local regulations, to provide grounds when asserting that their risk-mitigation orders are proportionate, lawful, and just.

It is doubtful that a Thai court would rule that the circumstances we find ourselves in now would justify an employer requiring employees to be vaccinated, but this legal standard can be applied to other actions as well. Employers should consider current workplace conditions and all other aspects of the situation on a case-by-case basis to determine whether their order is proportionate, lawful, and just. A number of questions can help clarify the acceptability of a workplace requirement minimizing the risk of COVID-19 exposure or transmission. For example:

  • Is there a government regulation or announcement determining high-risk conditions that supports an employer’s assumptions (of a real risk that is likely to have adverse effects if not handled correctly)?
  • Are there reasonable grounds to believe that an employee is infected with COVID-19?
  • Is there a high possibility of the virus being transmitted in the workplace by the employee in question?
  • Are there other solutions that could remove the risk (e.g., having the employee work from home or in isolation, etc.)?

When all of the relevant questions are considered, an employer may issue orders to certain employees to safeguard health and safety in the workplace, and if the employees violate these without reasonable cause, the employer may prohibit them from entering the workplace.

As mentioned above, the Communicable Disease Act has been one of the key pieces of legislation enlisted in the fight against the pandemic. When there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a dangerous or communicable disease is prevalent in an area, authorities may require infected or high-risk persons, contacts, and carriers to undergo medical examination or treatment—including immunization. The authorities may also issue a written order instructing any person to carry out these actions.

Therefore, it is possible that an employer could be ordered by a communicable disease control officer to proceed with requiring employees to be vaccinated. If that were to occur, it could support the idea that the employer’s order is “lawful and just,” as the employer would face penalties for failing to comply and would thus be justified in taking disciplinary actions to fulfil their duty under the officer’s order. Similarly, if the officer’s order is actually for all persons in the area of a workplace to be vaccinated, an employer may also then require the relevant employees to be vaccinated accordingly.

Mandating vaccination for employees in the absence of such an order could be problematic as an employee could challenge the mandate as not “lawful and just.” The grounds for this argument lie in the constitution itself. Sections 28 and 47 of the constitution provide that “a person shall enjoy the right and liberty in his or her life and person,” that “a person shall have the right to receive public health services provided by the state,” and that “a person shall have the right to the protection and eradication of harmful contagious disease by the state free of charge as provided by law.” The constitution does not, however, impose any duty to be vaccinated against one’s will. Thus, forcing an employee to undergo vaccination against his or her will could put an employer at risk of litigation and liability.

However, focusing on the viability of (probably off-limits) vaccine mandates and other workplace orders to prevent the spread of COVID-19 may not even be the best approach for employers. After all, if 100% vaccination is the optimal scenario, the most realistic way to attain this is through all the employees consenting voluntarily to be vaccinated. Thus, good relations with the workforce—in this case facilitating employees’ access to vaccines and emphasizing the importance of getting vaccinated—are likely the best route to obtaining high vaccination rates.

In addition, employers can require observance of standard COVID-19 safety precautions in the workplace, such as masks, social distancing, hand washing, good ventilation, and other hygiene precautions to add a layer of protection and minimize the threat of COVID-19 transmission. Mandating technology use to minimize or even replace face-to-face or physical contact is also possible, and workplaces and customer contact areas could be rearranged to prevent or limit crowding.

While the background discussed above should provide employers with a general guide to the position Thai law takes on this subject, employers can also seek specialist opinions for advice tailored to their specific circumstances. Through the implementation of policies and practices that are flexible, supportive of employee morale and health, and vigilant against any future onset of employee illness, employers will be able to help their businesses get steadily back to normal.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 21, 2025
A proposal to establish a specialized Intellectual Property Court in Vietnam has been a topic of significant interest among IP practitioners for the past 20 years. It was thus a major breakthrough when the new Law on the Organization of People’s Courts was ratified in 2024, stipulating in Article 4.1(dd) that the Vietnamese court system would include a specialized first-instance IP Court. The new law took effect on January 1, 2025, replacing the Law on the Organization of People’s Courts of 2014, A groundbreaking law This breakthrough can be viewed from multiple perspectives. First of all, in terms of organization, this is the first time, after numerous considerations, that Vietnam has officially recognized the importance of the IP field and the need to establish a specialized adjudicative body due to the field’s unique nature. The establishment of a specialized first-instance IP Court is expected to lead to fundamental changes in the practice of developing and applying IP law. While the establishment of IP rights such as trademarks, patents, and plant varieties is managed by administrative agencies such as the Intellectual Property Office, the Copyright Office, and the Crop Production Department, which seem unlikely to change their functions and tasks, there could be significant changes in the enforcement of these rights, which has been a persistent issue in Vietnam’s IP law system. Thus far, in practice, the enforcement of IP rights in Vietnam has relied overwhelmingly on administrative measures over civil measures. Civil measures, typically involving court proceedings under which the matter will be submitted to a court for settlement, are not appealing to disputing parties, especially IP rights owners. The absence of a specialized court has led to many IP cases being handled by judges without any knowledge or experience in this specialized field, resulting in confusion, misconceptions about
Read More
January 2, 2025
On December 27, 2024, a new minimum daily wage rate in Thailand was published in the Government Gazette, taking effect on January 1, 2025. With these changes, the minimum daily wage in 2025 ranges from THB 337 to THB 400, up from the previous THB 330 to THB 370, depending on the province. For most provinces, these rates reflect an increase of THB 7 per day, except for the following provinces and districts, which have increases of THB 9–55 per day: Bangkok Chon Buri Hat Yai District in Songkhla Ko Samui District in Surat Thani Mueang Chiang Mai District in Chiang Mai Nakhon Pathom Nonthaburi Pathum Thani Phuket Rayong Samut Prakan Samut Sakhon The full table of minimum daily wage rates is below. For more details on the new minimum wages, or any aspect of labor and employment in Thailand, please contact Pimvimol (June) Vipamaneerut at [email protected], Ketnut Pukahuta at [email protected], Dusita Khanijou at [email protected], or Chomanut Arif at [email protected].
Read More
December 27, 2024
Thailand has issued a series of regulations implementing the Employee Welfare Fund, which was established under the Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA) but had remained unimplemented since the law’s enactment. The Employee Welfare Fund provides financial support to employees in cases such as termination of employment, death, and other circumstances as specified by the Employee Welfare Fund Committee. Under the LPA, employers with more than ten employees are required to register their employees with the Employee Welfare Fund if they do not offer employees a provident fund or comparable assistance for employment termination or death. With the new regulations detailed below, employers are now able to comply fully with this requirement. Implementation Timeline and Details On November 15, 2024, the Royal Decree Determining the Period for Starting the Collection of Savings and Contributions to the Employee Welfare Fund was officially enacted and published in the Government Gazette. According to this royal decree, contributions to the Employee Welfare Fund will commence on October 1, 2025. Two ministerial decrees followed on November 22, 2024—one setting the withholding and contribution rates, and the other outlining minimum levels of financial assistance due in cases of employment termination or death. The Ministerial Notification Specifying the Rate of Savings and Contributions stipulates the required rates for contributions to the Employee Welfare Fund and establishes a five-year initial period with reduced contribution rates. From October 1, 2025, to September 30, 2030, employers and employees are each required to contribute 0.25% of wages to the Employee Welfare Fund. Starting October 1, 2030, employers and employees will each be required to contribute 0.5% of wages. The Ministerial Notification Specifying Criteria and Procedures for Employers to Provide Assistance in Cases of Employment Termination or Death establishes the guidelines employers must follow when offering financial assistance to employees
Read More
December 12, 2024
Litigation is usually the last resort in resolving disputes. Most parties to a dispute try to avoid litigation altogether, fearing that seeking recourse with the courts or arbitration will lead to a disruption in commercial relationships, result in increased legal expenses, and generally lengthen the period in which the dispute remains unresolved. While some of these concerns may indeed be legitimate, sometimes litigation is the only means for a party to obtain relief. For parties contemplating such recourse, it is reassuring to know that the Thai court system is generally an accessible, unbiased, and balanced vehicle for the resolution of disputes. Civil Litigation in Thailand aims to introduce some of the fundamentals of Thai civil court procedures and practices. This brief guide covers the main issues concerning civil litigation in Thailand as either a plaintiff or a defendant. Tilleke & Gibbins also publishes a similar guide for Vietnam. The full guide is available through the button below.
Read More