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​ 

November 24, 2022
On November 24, 2022, Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Marcin Czepelak and leaders of Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs chaired the opening ceremony of the PCA’s Representative Office in Hanoi. Beyond its headquarters in The Hague, the PCA has opened offices in other cities to make its services more accessible in different regions. The Hanoi office will be the PCA’s fourth office outside its headquarters. The PCA, established in 1899, is an intergovernmental organization which provides resolution services for disputes involving states, state entities, international organizations, as well as private entities. It provides and administers arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and fact-finding commissions of inquiry. The PCA’s services are primarily used in Europe and Asia. In cases administered in 2021, approximately 47% of the disputing parties were from the Western European and Others Group of the United Nations Regional Groups, and 40% from the Asia Pacific Group. The majority of disputes resolved by PCA are state-related disputes; however, the PCA’s scope of settlement is also extended to the private sector. The PCA’s Hanoi office is staffed to administer PCA hearings and meetings and will provide administrative services in support of parties and arbitrators conducting arbitral proceedings under the PCA’s auspices, serving as the official channel of communications and ensuring safe custody of documents. The PCA can also provide such services as financial administration, logistical and technical support for meetings and hearings, travel arrangements, and general secretarial and linguistic support. Currently, Vietnam has some active members of the PCA. The opening of the PCA representative office is a step toward realizing commitments between Vietnam and the PCA in their protocol signed in 2021, and serving the evolving dispute resolution needs of states and other entities in the coming years. With the new office in Hanoi, it is expected that
Read More
October 28, 2022
Tilleke & Gibbins employment specialists in Myanmar have contributed an updated Myanmar chapter to Employment and Employee Benefits Global Guide, a Thomson Reuters Practical Law online publication that provides an overview of employment and employee benefits in jurisdictions worldwide. The Myanmar chapter was written by members of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Yangon office, including Yuwadee Thean-ngarm, director; Nwe Oo, senior associate; Sher Hann Chua, consultant; and Kyaw Min Tun, consultant. The chapter covers a wide range of key employment topics, including employment status, background checks, regulation of the employment relationship, minimum wage, working hours and holidays, illness and injury of employees, discrimination and harassment, termination of employment, resolution of employer-employee disputes, redundancy/layoffs, employee representation and consultation, business transfer and insolvency, employee relocation, health and safety obligations, taxation of employment income, intellectual property issues, and more. Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Employment and Employee Benefits Global Guide covers 46 jurisdiction around the world, with Tilleke & Gibbins also providing the Vietnam chapter of the guide. To view the latest version of the Myanmar chapter, please visit the Practical Law website.
Read More
October 27, 2022
Under Thai bankruptcy law, a creditor can file a request for a debtor to be placed under an absolute receivership order and bankruptcy judgment. However, the debtor must be insolvent, and the debt owed to the creditor or creditors must be at least THB 1 million (for a debtor who is a natural person) or THB 2 million (for the debtor who is a juristic person). In order to know whether the latter requirement is met, the debt must be “determinable”—that is, known and monetarily quantifiable. More specifically, determinable debt is debt (up to the filing date) in an amount that can be calculated, whether the debt is payable immediately or in the future. The debt can be under a loan agreement or under a sale-and-purchase agreement. One question that sometimes comes up is whether damages arising out of termination of such an agreement are considered determinable debt. According to a number of Supreme Court precedents, if the debt (e.g., rent, fine or penalty) can be calculated as referred to in the agreement, the debt is determinable. Three of these cases are described below. Supreme Court Case No. 2653/2526 In this case, the defendant made a partial delivery of oil (i.e., not the amount fully expected) to the plaintiff, who claimed that the defendant owed them a fine of almost THB 14.9 million, calculated in accordance with the sale-and-purchase agreement for the oil. The defendant argued that the debt was not determinable because the plaintiff did not prove whether they suffered damage or not. The Supreme Court noted that the agreement for sale and purchase of oil stated clearly that if the defendant could not deliver oil to the plaintiff in full, the plaintiff had the right to terminate the agreement and fine the defendant 25 percent of the
Read More
October 19, 2022
The Factory Act B.E. 2535 (1992) is one of the most important laws regulating manufacturing businesses in Thailand. It applies to businesses either with machinery of 50 horsepower or more in total, or with a minimum of 50 workers in a facility that conducts “factory work” as defined under related ministerial regulations. The act was recently amended to extend the period of validity for factory licenses and to make other miscellaneous changes that facilitate business. However, the act’s criminal liabilities were left unchanged, and they remain a vital tool for the authorities to exert control over relevant standards and prosecute violations. Both fines and imprisonment are available as sanctions under the law. Examples of common violations of the Factory Act and their potential penalties include: Setting up and operating a factory without acquiring a license: up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to THB 200,000 (approx. USD 5,365), or both. Operating with noise level exceeding the standard set by the Ministry of Industry: a fine of up to THB 200,000. Not displaying a factory license in an open and easily visible location in the factory: a fine of up to THB 5,000 (approx. USD 134). Doing a test run of machinery prior to the start of the factory operations without notifying the authorities: a fine of up to THB 20,000. As factory activities are regulated in considerable detail, overlooking a minor change could potentially put the company at risk. The risk of violating the Factory Act increases when compliance is not a proactive policy—such as by instituting systems or safeguards to ensure adherence to the rules. Criminal Liability Violation of the Factory Act is especially a concern because criminal liability under the act is not limited to juristic persons (i.e., companies) but also applies to the director,
Read More