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​ 

August 20, 2025
On August 7, 2025, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 219/2025/ND-CP on foreign workers working in Vietnam (Decree 219), introducing substantial reforms to the management of foreign employees. Taking immediate effect upon issuance, and superseding earlier regulations on foreign employees under Decree No. 152/2020/ND-CP as amended by Decree No. 70/2023/ND-CP (collectively referred to as “Decree 152”), Decree 219 sets out clear timeframes and application requirements for work permit issuance, while adopting more flexible policies to support business operations. The key new provisions are as follows: 1. Relaxed Requirements Regarding Job-Posting Under Decree 152, employers were required to follow a complex process to apply for work permits or work permit exemption certificates for foreign employees. This included posting an advertisement for any position the employer wished to fill with a foreign employee on a designated online portal for a given amount of time, to demonstrate that the company tried, but failed, to find a suitable Vietnamese candidate for the position. This job-posting step now only applies when the foreigner will work in Vietnam under a local labor contract. Foreigners coming to Vietnam as intra-corporate transferees (i.e., as secondees) or working under service contracts are exempt. The job-posting period is also reduced from 15 calendar days to five business days. Employers may also now post the advertisements on multiple websites instead of only the online portal of the Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs (now the Ministry of Home Affairs after government restructuring) or the provincial-level employment service center. 2. Work Permit Application Dossier Previously, employers were required to complete a preapproval step, whereby they had to submit a dossier explaining their foreign labor demand that required approval from the labor authority. Once approval for the foreign labor demand was granted, the approval dossier was an integral part of
Read More
August 20, 2025
With the shift in US policy to discourage DEI programs among government and private-sector employers, some companies have been cutting back. But US companies should be cautious in eliminating their DEI programs globally, as some elements of these programs are obligations under local laws in Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia.
Read More
July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that
Read More
July 7, 2025
On June 20, 2025, Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance issued Instruction No. 19116 to clarify when board members and company directors must receive salaries and pay payroll taxes. Board members and company directors who are not considered employees are subject to a withholding tax. This category consists of people who complete services for a nonresident individual and people who perform independent work for a company in Cambodia. Board members and company directors who are considered employees, including those appointed by a foreign head office to temporarily manage a company in Cambodia, must pay payroll taxes on any salary they receive, regardless of whether they are paid by a local or foreign branch of the company. The above obligations apply regardless of whether the person has a work permit. Board members and company directors are exempt from paying payroll tax if they: Are not present and not performing a regular management role at the company despite being registered on the company’s statutes or patent tax card; Participate only in board meetings and occasional shareholder meetings; and Do not receive a salary from a company in Cambodia. Overall, this instruction provides an important clarification regarding the tax obligations of board members and company directors. Companies should pay attention to the classification of their board members and directors and be mindful of the exemption.   This article was written with the assistance of Tilleke & Gibbins interns Amelia Gemma Erickson and Amrin Keat.
Read More