Many companies have labor unions and employee committees, but few fully understand the potential significance or impact of these organizations. Unfortunately, even fewer understand the possible legal ramifications of taking disciplinary action against employee committee members.
Employers may face severe criminal penalties if they violate an employee committee member’s rights, and so it is vital for them to understand these principles before taking any form of disciplinary and/or obstructive action against an employee committee member.
Purpose and Composition
The fundamental purpose of the employee committee is to maintain friendly relations and open communication channels between employers and employees through regular meetings. The law provides for the existence of such a structure under the Labor Relations Act (BE 2518) to ensure that there is an official forum for both sides to discuss workplace matters.
Any employer who employs at least 50 people is required by law to facilitate the establishment of such an employee committee. Members can be elected—or, where appropriate, appointed by a labor union—for three-year terms of office. The table below shows the minimum membership numbers.
|Company Size by
Number of Employees
|50 to 100||5|
|101 to 200||7|
|201 to 400||9|
|401 to 800||11|
|801 to 1,500||13|
|1,501 to 2,500||15|
|2,501+||17 to 21|
If a workplace has a labor union whose members account for more than 20% of all employees, the union must appoint the majority of committee members. If more than 50% of all employees are members of the union, it is technically entitled to appoint all committee members.
The law also requires an employer to meet with the committee at least once every three months, or when the labor union or more than 50% of committee members request such a meeting with reasonable grounds. The following topics may be discussed at such a meeting:
Taking Disciplinary Action
Under Thai law, an employer cannot terminate, reduce the wages, take disciplinary action, or otherwise obstruct the performance of an employee committee member’s duty without prior permission of the Labor Court. An employer who breaches the law could face criminal penalties, including a fine not exceeding 1,000 baht and/or jail of up to one month.
The Supreme Court recognizes that these penalties remain, even if the employer submits a successful petition to the Labor Court obtaining permission to terminate the employee, since the offense was committed before the court order for termination was granted.
The court order requirements include any scenario in which an employee committee member commits an offense that violates the company work rules. The disciplinary action ultimately taken against a committee member depends on both the employer’s work rules and the court’s consideration. This means that even if the work rules state that an offense is punishable by termination, the court has discretion to punish the offender less severely than what the rules would otherwise prescribe, particularly if it considers that the offense is not grievous enough to warrant termination of the employee. This position is supported by Supreme Court precedent.
However, if the court does issue an order permitting the termination of an employee, any subsequent act of termination would not be considered an unfair labor practice. In this case, the employee would not be entitled to submit a complaint to the Labor Relations Committee.
For these reasons, employers should be aware of the potential risks before taking any disciplinary action against a member of an employee committee. Any act obstructing the duty of an employee committee member taken without the prior permission of the Labor Court can and will be construed as a violation of the employee committee rules, regardless of the employee’s subsequent actions or any permission later obtained through legal channels.