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​ 

April 28, 2023
Instead of the typical dystopian scene of flames, wastelands of shattered buildings, and robotic overlords policing the remaining humans, our actual dystopian future may be a workplace filled only with men named Jared who once played lacrosse in high school. This may sound far-fetched, but one resume-screening tool was found to be using an algorithm that concluded two factors were most determinative of job performance: the name Jared and a history of playing lacrosse in high school. The frailties of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in recruitment and hiring could transform our workforces in unpredictable ways. If employers blindly follow AI outcomes without a deeper examination of how the algorithmic decision is reached, hiring outcomes may be not only ridiculous but also discriminatory. Risks of AI-Reliant Hiring Some employers have enthusiastically embraced AI as a way to reduce costs and replace human bias in the recruitment process. Human recruiters do not have a great track record; for example, in France, discrimination in recruitment has posed such a serious problem that the government submits false work biographies with ethnic names to identify and punish employers that unreasonably reject qualified ethnic applicants. Unfortunately, AI is modeled on human thinking, so it may amplify our own prejudices and errant conclusions while giving the appearance of providing a fair and clean process. AI typically learns inductively by training on examples and historical data. Factors such as exclusion of certain groups from educational or career opportunities has often shaped this data, so AI’s decisions may amplify this past prejudice. For instance, Amazon experimented with mechanized recruitment in 2014, but abandoned these efforts prior to implementation after the AI tool selected a predominantly male workforce. The AI learned by analyzing patterns in resumes submitted to the company over the last 10 years. Since over this period
Read More
April 28, 2023
Thailand’s legal system is based on European continental civil law systems, with a three-tier court system. Precedents set by the Thai Supreme Court are merely considered as examples of the application of laws and are not binding on Thai courts. While the country’s judiciary and dispute resolution mechanisms are well developed, some aspects can be unfamiliar or even surprising to counsel unfamiliar with the Thai court system. This article introduces some of the Thai civil court procedures and practices, and covers several key issues it is important to understand regarding civil litigation in Thailand. Offers of compromise or settlement In Thailand, there is no such thing as an ‘offer without prejudice’. Anything put in writing can be used against the offering party. Therefore, compromises, settlements, and offers to compromise or settle should not be made before consulting with legal counsel. Similarly, parties at trial or anticipating litigation should be cautious in all communications with the opposing party. Location of assets Before initiating litigation, plaintiffs should investigate the nature and extent of the defendant’s assets in Thailand and abroad. A monetary judgment is of limited value if the defendant has little or no recoverable assets. Therefore, any information a claimant has on the opposing party should be assessed at the beginning of the case or as soon as is reasonably possible. Language of documents All documents submitted to a Thai court must be in the Thai language. Foreign documents must be the originals or certified copies, and certain documents also need to be notarised and then authenticated by a Thai consular official. Court costs A plaintiff must pay a court filing fee when submitting a case. This is usually 2% of the claim amount but will not exceed THB 200,000 per action for claims of up to THB 50 million.
Read More
April 11, 2023
A significant new procedural law for fines in Thailand results in the mass removal of certain types of fines for criminal penalties and alters procedures for certain administrative monetary penalties.   There are generally two types of fines imposed under Thai law: criminal fines and administrative fines. However, there will soon be a type of fine that exists outside of the criminal or administrative legal mechanisms: the phinai fine, which is neither a criminal penalty nor an administrative fine. Instead, a phinai fine—which must be paid to the state—is one assessed in lieu of criminal penalties for less-serious offenses. Perhaps the closest equivalent to a phinai fine would be a “civil” fine, but there is no official translation of Thailand’s first law dedicated to these fines, the Act on Phinai Fine Proceedings B.E. 2565 (2022) (ACFP), which was published in the Government Gazette on October 25, 2022. Before proceeding further to discuss the significance of the new law, a note should be made regarding the term phinai. As there has been no official translation of the ACFP, there is currently no official translation of phinai. Under the ACFP, “to seek a phinai fine” (or prap pen phinai) was determined to have the specific meaning of ordering a phinai penalty offender to pay a phinai fine. The meaning of the term as defined reflects a type of phinai penalty, which is neither a criminal penalty nor an administrative fine. In the future, there is a possibility that the official translation of the ACFP may use a different term. The passage of the ACFP provides Thailand with a special procedural law for all phinai fines, ultimately resulting in a significant change in the categorization and collection of fines and administrative monetary penalties. Other than two sections on administrative preparations that took
Read More
April 3, 2023
Most employers know that terminating employees for poor job performance is not easy. But it is actually legally possible—if employers have the right approach and take specific precautionary measures. However, failing to take these precautions can mean that an employer is either stuck with an incompetent employee or on the losing end of a lawsuit for unfair termination. This article will lay out some essential considerations for employers in Thailand regarding termination of employment for poor performance. First, understand that “poor work performance” is a lack of performance or ability, or an inability to work with other employees. It does not constitute a violation of work rules or regulations. In some cases, however, an employee’s failure to act in accordance with lawful instructions or commands of the employer, resulting in poor work performance, could also be considered a violation of work rules or regulations. This may be the case if the work rules or regulations clearly state that an employee must strictly comply with the employer’s instructions or commands. Second, an employer can, in fact, terminate an employee due to poor work performance. For example, this may be possible in the following scenarios: Records show that an employee’s work performance has fallen below the employer’s required standards, and the employee has not tried to improve his or her work performance for three consecutive years. In addition, it does not appear that the employer was biased when giving ratings or scores for the employee’s work performance. The job description of the employee includes coordination with employees in other departments, but the employee has not been able to do so. Therefore, the employee was reassigned to a new job function, but the employee still did not improve. This suggests that the employee has a lack of interpersonal skills and is not
Read More