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​ 

February 24, 2023
On February 20, 2023, the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam submitted a Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts, as well as a Draft Amendment of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts to seek online comment from interested parties. Notably, the Supreme People’s Court has expressed a desire to establish specialized courts such as an IP court and a bankruptcy court. Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts The Supreme People’s Court reviewed the implementation over the past eight years of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts (“LOPC”), which took effect in 2015. Some highlights of the implementation process, as set out in the Supreme People’s Court’s practical report, are as follows: Re-systematization of all levels of courts: The LOPC systematized the court system in Vietnam, including four levels: Supreme People’s Court Three Superior People’s Courts 765 first-instance trial courts (including 702 district courts and 63 provincial courts) 66 appellate courts (including 63 provincial people’s courts and the three Superior People’s Courts) In addition, the Supreme People’s Court established four adjudicating agencies for cassation and reopening (including three Judicial Committees of the Superior People’s Court and the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court). Support departments for the court have been strengthened, and policies have been developed to train judges. Trial results: From June 1, 2015, to April 30, 2022, the courts have settled 3,187,285 cases of all kinds out of a total of 3,334,915 cases handled (95.57%). Most of the remaining cases are newly accepted and still within the time limit for settlement as prescribed by law. On average, the courts have had to deal with about 476,416 cases each year. Draft Amendment of Law on Organization of People’s Courts Despite the notable
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
December 19, 2022
On November 22, 2022, the Thai cabinet approved in principle the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act (the “Bill”) proposed by the Office of the Consumer Protection Board. While Thailand’s Product Liability Act B.E. 2551 (2008) deals with liability to consumers arising from unsafe products, the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act aims to ensure that consumers are well protected from defects in appliances and vehicles that might not initially be easily visible or noticed. Key Definitions The Bill applies most notably to business operators and consumers. In the Bill, a “business operator” who may potentially be liable is: a manufacturer (or its hirer) of goods for sale; or a consignee or importer who brings goods into Thailand for sale; or a seller or a hire purchase provider who cannot identify the manufacturer (or its hirer) or the importer. As opposed to the Product Liability Act, which clearly provides that all business operators in the supply chain must be jointly liable, the Bill lacks such clear guidance. This could be interpreted as meaning that under the current Bill only the business operator at the top of the supply chain who is sued in the same case as other business operators is responsible. A “consumer” is defined as a purchaser or hirer of goods from a manufacturer, including an assignee or successor of the goods from the purchaser or hirer. Scope and Application The Bill is intended to govern purchase or hire-purchase contracts for: electric appliances; electronic devices; personal cars and motorcycles; other goods that may be set out in a future royal decree issued under the act. The Bill will not apply to any purchase or hire purchase of used products or as-is products when this is clearly stated by the seller or hire-purchase provider or the auctioneer in
Read More