Site icon The Legal Co., Ltd.

Labor: The Battle for Fair Treatment

The Legal Co.,Ltd.
black and gray photo of person in front of computer monitor

Photo by Ruslan Burlaka on Pexels.com

Labor: The Battle for Fair Treatment

In the intricate world of labor law, a case emerged that would challenge the principles of fair treatment and equality in the workplace. This is the story of a quality control inspector who fought for his rights and set a precedent for labor practices in Thailand.

The Employment Journey:

The plaintiff, once an employee of the first defendant and later a contract worker for the second defendant, was sent to work in the production department of the second defendant on 25 January 2017. His final position was as a quality control inspector. On 6 May 2020, the second defendant returned the plaintiff to the first defendant. During his tenure with the second defendant, the plaintiff received a housing allowance of 750 baht per month, while direct employees of the second defendant received 2,300 baht per month. The plaintiff never received annual bonuses or diligence allowances from either defendant.

The Dispute:

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking for housing allowances, diligence allowances, and bonuses. The labor court found that the defendants were not liable for the housing and diligence allowances. However, the court ruled that the second defendant’s failure to pay bonuses to contract workers, who performed the same tasks as direct employees, constituted discriminatory treatment under Section 11/1 of the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998).

The Appeal:

The second defendant appealed, arguing that under the Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975), they had the right to set different criteria for union members and non-members. Since the plaintiff was not a union member, he was not entitled to the bonus. The Specialized Court of Appeal dismissed this argument, stating it was a factual dispute rather than a legal one.

The Supreme Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court had to determine whether the second defendant’s appeal was a legal issue. The court found that the second defendant’s argument was indeed a legal one, as it involved the interpretation of the Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975) and the Labor Protection Act. B.E. 2541 (1998). The Supreme court ruled that the second defendant’s practice of not paying bonuses to contract workers was discriminatory and violated Section 11/1 of the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998). The Supreme Court also addressed the second defendant’s claim that applying the employment conditions agreement to non-union members violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court found that this was not a constitutional issue but rather a matter of legal interpretation.

The Outcome:

The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision, ordering the second defendant to pay the plaintiff a bonus of 124,796 baht, with interest. The Supreme Court also adjusted the interest rate to comply with the new Civil and Commercial Code amendments, which reduced the default interest rate from 7.5% to 5% per year.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Equality in Benefits: Employers must provide equal benefits and welfare to contract workers and direct employees performing the same tasks.
  2. Legal Interpretation: Disputes involving the interpretation of labor laws can be considered legal issues and are subject to higher court review.
  3. Non-Discrimination: Discriminatory practices in the workplace, such as unequal bonus payments, are prohibited under labor protection laws.
  4. Constitutional Claims: Arguments based on constitutional grounds must clearly demonstrate a conflict with constitutional provisions to be considered valid.
  5. This case underscores the importance of fair treatment in the workplace and the legal avenues available to employees’ seeking justice. It serves as a reminder that equality and non-discrimination are fundamental principles in labor law.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

Exit mobile version