Tag: employment and labor

on by

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.

crop asian judge working on laptop in office

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

on by

Labor: Private Higher Education Institutions with Special Labor Protections

Background:

Dr. James (a pseudonym) had been a dedicated professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at a private university for over 28 years. His commitment to teaching and research was unwavering until the day he received a retirement notice from the university.

“I felt betrayed,” Dr. James recalls. “When I started working here, there was a regulation about severance pay that was more beneficial to employees. But the university changed the rules without my knowledge.”

Feeling that he had been treated unfairly, Dr. James decided to sue the university in the labor court, demanding severance pay according to the original regulations.

“I thought this was a violation of labor rights,” he says. “But I was not sure if standard labor protection laws applied to private universities”.

Dr. James’s case went through the Central Labor Court, the Specialized Appeal Court, and finally reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision in 2023, surprised Dr. James and many in the academic community. The Supreme Court ruled that private higher education institutions are not subject to regular labor protection and labor relations laws.

“I had no idea there was specific legislation for private higher education institutions,” Dr. James says, disappointment evident in his voice. “But at least this law stipulates that employees must receive benefits no less than those prescribed by general labor protection laws”.

Although, he lost the case, Dr. James’s fight was not in vain. His case helped raise awareness about the rights of personnel in private higher education institutions.

“I hope my story will be a lesson for my colleagues,” Dr. James concludes. “We need to know our rights and closely monitor any changes in regulations.”

Key Takeaways

  1. Private higher education institutions in Thailand are governed by specific labor protection laws, not subject to general labor protection and labor relations laws.
  2. Employees in private higher education institutions must receive benefits no less than those specified in general labor protection laws.
  3. Changes to internal regulations of private higher education institutions are not considered amendments to employment conditions under labor relations law.
  4. Personnel in private higher education institutions should regularly monitor changes in internal organizational regulations.
  5. Labor lawsuits, even if unsuccessful, can help raise awareness about the rights of employees in private higher education institutions.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Proposed Reforms for Migrant Workers in Thailand: Temporary Stay and Work Permit Relaxations

Thailand hosts numerous migrant workers from neighboring countries, including Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. These workers often face legal challenges such as expired documents, lack of proper work permits, or illegal entry. To address these issues and create a more supportive environment, the Thai Cabinet approved the Ministry of Labor’s proposal on 24 September 2024, with an official announcement expected to be published in the Royal Gazette soon. Key reforms include:

1. Management of Migrant Workers

  • Eligible Nationalities: Cambodian, Laotian, Myanmar, and Vietnamese workers with expired work permits, expired visas, or no work permits, including those who entered the country illegally.
  • Dependents: Children under 18 may stay with their parents. Those turning 18 have 60 days to apply for a work permit.
  • Temporary Stay: The Ministry of Labor will define the period for migrant workers to legalize their status and apply for work permits. Employers must apply for permits, granting workers a one-year permit upon approval.

2. Work Permit Renewal

  • Eligibility: Migrant workers from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam with valid permits under prior Cabinet decisions (2022-2023) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) until February 13, 2025.
  • Extension: Eligible workers can apply for a two-year extension, renewable once for an additional two years.

3. Employment Conditions Amendment

  • Employer Change: Migrants leaving their job before contract expiry or at its conclusion must begin working for a new employer within 60 days (previously 30 days).
  • Validity: These changes are valid until February 13, 2029.

4. Exemption from Employment Notifications

  • Exemption: Migrants with work permits are exempt from notifying authorities of employer or job details unless changing or adding an employer.
  • Validity: This exemption is effective until February 13, 2029.

Conclusion: The Thai government’s proposed reforms mark significant progress in improving conditions for migrant workers. By easing temporary stay regulations, extending work permits, and simplifying employer change processes, these measures aim to create a more stable and supportive environment. These reforms are expected to benefit both migrant workers and the Thai economy by promoting legal employment and reducing the risks associated with undocumented labor.

Key Takeaways:

  • Both migrant workers and the Thai economy are expected to benefit from these reforms.
  • The Thai government has introduced reforms to improve conditions for migrant workers from Cambodia, Lao, Myanmar and Vietnam.
  • The reforms include relaxed temporary stay rules, extended work permits, and easier employer change procedures.
  • These changes aim to create a more stable and supportive environment for migrant workers.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Labor: An Overview of Whistleblower Protection in Thailand

Introduction:

The concept of whistleblowing, while well-established in many countries, is relatively new in Thailand. Whistleblowing serves as a crucial tool for enhancing accountability and transparency within organizations. The protection of whistleblowers is essential to encourage employees to expose unethical behavior, corruption, and labor law violations without fear of retaliation. This article examines the current state of whistleblower protection in Thailand’s labor law context.

Legal Framework:

mad formal executive man yelling at camera

Absence of Specific Legislation

Thailand currently lacks specific legislation dedicated to protecting whistleblowers. The term “whistleblower” itself is not formally defined in Thai law. However, existing laws provide some degree of protection for employees reporting unethical practices as follows:

1. Protection from Thai Labor Legislations

In Thailand, there is currently no legislation specifically protecting whistle-blowers, nor is the term formally defined in Thai law. However, the Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975) (“Labor Relations Act”) provides some level of protection for employees who report unethical practices. The objective is to protect employees so that they receive protection and can exercise their various labor rights without interference, pressure, or coercion from others, whether from their employers or other organizations. The Labor Relations Act prohibits employers from terminating employees or taking actions that would prevent them from continuing their work due to protesting, filing complaints, serving as witnesses in labor law matters, or being a member of the labor union. These provisions can be interpreted as protective measures for whistle-blowers, imposing penalties of imprisonment and fines on employers who retaliate against them.

In addition to the Labor Relations Act, there are also provisions related to whistleblower protection in the Labor Court Establishment and Labor Litigation Procedure Act B.E. 2522 (1979) which allows the labor court to order an employer to reinstate an employee at the wage rate received at termination if it finds the termination unfair. If the employer cannot continue working, the court will assess the damages, considering the employee’s age, employment length, hardships, grounds for termination, and any compensation the employee is entitled to.

2. Awareness Among Organizations

Organizations in Thailand, such as the Stock Exchange, have recognized the importance of protecting employees. They utilize whistleblowing as a tool to gather complaints regarding violations of laws, regulations, or ethical standards, which can damage the organization’s reputation and assets.

The amendment to the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) has introduced additional sections related to whistleblower protection. This amendment prohibits companies from engaging in any unfair practices against employees, workers, or other individuals hired by the company who assist the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Capital Market Supervisory Board, or the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission in investigating wrongdoing. Violations of these provisions may result in criminal penalties, including fines for the listed companies and imprisonment for directors of such listed companies.

3. Legal Framework for Disputes

As mentioned above, when there is a labor-related offense or unfair acts between employers and employees, it will fall under the jurisdiction of the labor court. If there is a crime in other cases involved, for example, if employee A is sexually harassed by the manager and employee B reports the offense to management, employee B will act as a whistleblower and have the right to receive protection under the Labor Relations Act and the Labor Court Establishment and Labor Litigation Procedure Act B.E. 2522 (1979).

silhouette of man holding flamethrower

4. Judicial Precedents

Currently, no precedent judgment is directly related to whistleblowing cases. However, there is a judicial precedent reflecting the protection of employees from unfair dismissal resulting from their action against the employer to request compliance with their rights as employees.

Under the Precedent Supreme Court No. 3451-3452/2549, around 200 employees protested their management, requesting that their employment conditions regarding bonus payment be amended. The protest began at 7 a.m. and ended at 7.15 a.m., with the employer’s management team declaring to alter the employment conditions and refrain from pursuing any disciplinary action against those employees. Later, the employer filed a case to dismiss these employees.

The Supreme Court ruled that when an employer expressed a desire not to pursue any disciplinary action against employees, the employer was not entitled to terminate the employees.

According to the precedent case given, protesting to obtain a change in employment conditions is comparable with the whistleblower filing a labor rights complaint. The court will rule following the Labor Relations Act, which safeguards employees’ actions based on their rights.

Conclusion:

Although, Thailand lacks specific legislation for whistleblower protection, existing labor laws provide a framework that can be interpreted to safeguard employees who act as whistleblowers. The Labor Relations Act and the Labor Court Establishment and Labor Litigation Procedure Act offer mechanisms to protect employees from unjust termination and other retaliatory actions.

As awareness of the importance of whistleblower protection grows among organizations and regulatory bodies, it is likely that more robust protections will evolve within Thailand’s labor system. However, there remains a need for comprehensive legislation specifically addressing whistleblower protection to ensure that employees can report misconduct without fear of reprisal.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Labor: Legal Consideration for Employment Termination

Disclaimer:

This article provides a general legal framework for employment termination in Thailand. It is important to note that specific industries, professions, or situations may be subject to additional or different regulations. If a matter in question is governed by specific legislations, those particular laws and regulations must be considered in addition to the general principles outlined here.

Introduction:

Employment termination is a critical aspect of workforce management that requires careful consideration of legal and ethical factors. In Thailand, the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) provides the primary framework for lawful employment termination, balancing the rights of employers and employees. This article explores the key aspects of employment termination under Thai labor law, focusing on contract types, compensation requirements, and legal protections for both parties.

Types of Employment Contracts and Termination Procedures:

The Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) recognizes two primary types of employment agreements:

1. Fixed-Term Contracts

  • Termination occurs automatically upon contract expiration.
  • Early termination by the employer requires written notice.
  • Premature termination without cause may result in a breach of contract penalties.

2. Non-Fixed Term Contracts

  • Termination requires written notice prior to or on the wage payment date and will be effective on the following payment date.
  • Notice period should not exceed three months unless specified otherwise in the contract.

For both contract types, failure to provide proper notice obliges the employer to pay compensation in lieu of notice and salary until the effective termination date. Additional contractual obligations, such as repatriation expenses, must also be honored.

Compensation for Termination Without Cause:

When an employer terminates an employee without the employee committing any offense specified by law or contract, the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) mandates severance pay. The amount is calculated mainly on the employee’s length of service

In cases of contract breach before expiration without the employee’s fault, employers must pay damages. Failure to provide advance notice also requires compensation in lieu of notice.

upset faceless black businessman on street

Exceptions to Severance Pay Requirements:

The law provides exceptions where employers are not required to be responsible for severance pay, including:

  1. Employee dishonesty or intentional criminal offenses
  2. Intentional damage to the employer
  3. Gross negligence causing serious harm to the employer
  4. Violation of work regulations or orders
  5. Abandonment of duties for three consecutive days
  6. Imprisonment due to a court judgment

Even in these cases, employers must provide written termination notice and pay the salary up to the last working day.

Unfair Dismissal and Legal Recourse:

Employers should be cautious of unfair dismissal claims, even when severance pay is made. The Labor Court has the authority to:

  1. Order continued employment at the pre-termination wage rate
  2. Mandate compensation if continued employment is untenable

Unfair dismissal may be found in cases such as work-related accidents or discriminatory practices, even if the employee’s actions initially appeared to justify termination.

Employer Obligations and Best Practices:

To mitigate risks associated with employment termination, employers should:

  1. Adhere strictly to legal procedures for layoffs and terminations.
  2. Provide written notice of termination as required by law.
  3. Pay all required compensation, including severance pay if applicable.
  4. Obtain signed acknowledgment from the employee upon payment.
  5. Meet all payment deadlines to avoid additional penalties, surcharges and interest.
  6. Maintain comprehensive documentation of the termination process.
  7. Review and update employment contracts and work rules and regulations regularly.
  8. Conduct thorough investigations before terminating for cause.
  9. Consider alternatives to termination when appropriate.
  10. Seek legal counsel in complex cases or when unsure of obligations.

Conclusion:

Navigating employment termination in Thailand requires a thorough understanding of legal requirements and potential pitfalls. While this article provides an overview of the general legal framework, it is crucial to recognize that specific industries or situations may have additional requirements. By following the guidelines outlined in the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998), considering any applicable specific legislation, and maintaining fair, transparent practices, employers can manage workforce changes effectively while minimizing legal risks and preserving their reputation as fair and responsible entities in the labor market.

For any specific termination cases, especially those in industries with specialized regulations, it is advisable to consult with legal experts to ensure full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Legal Framework: The Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) is the primary legislation governing employment termination in Thailand, but specific industries may have additional regulations.
  2. Contract Types: Thai law recognizes two main types of employment contracts – fixed-term and non-fixed term – each with distinct termination procedures.
  3. Notice Requirements: Proper notice must be given for termination, or payment in lieu of notice is required.
  4. Severance Pay: Employers must pay severance for termination without cause, with the amount based on the employee’s length of service.
  5. Exceptions to Severance Pay: Certain employee misconduct (e.g., dishonesty and intentional damage) may exempt employers from severance pay obligations, but proper documentation is crucial.
  6. Unfair Dismissal: Even when severance pay is made, employers should be wary of unfair dismissal claims, which can result in additional penalties or reinstatement orders.
  7. Documentation: Maintaining comprehensive records of the termination process is essential for legal compliance and protection against disputes.
  8. Specific Legislation: Some industries or professions may be subject to additional or different regulations beyond the general labor law.
  9. Best Practices: Employers should follow a clear termination process, including written notice, proper payment, and obtaining employee acknowledgment.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

The Tale of a Fair Dismissal: Consent to Dismissal

In the bustling world of offshore technical work, a seasoned technician found himself at the center of a legal battle that would test the boundaries of labor law and contractual agreements. This is the story of how a seemingly straightforward dismissal turned into a landmark case, shedding light on the intricacies of employment law.

The Beginning:

In 1999, the technician, referred to as the plaintiff, was hired by the defendant company. Over the years, he rose to the position of a technical supervisor, working both onshore and offshore. His work schedule was rigorous: 28 days on duty followed by 14 days of rest, with wages paid on the 25th of each month.

The Dismissal:

In 2019, the company issued a termination letter to the plaintiff, effective 1 December 2019. The plaintiff, aware of the impending dismissal, signed the letter, acknowledging the termination and agreeing to accept the compensation offered by the company. He also waived any further claims against the company.

The Dispute:

Despite the agreement, the plaintiff later filed a lawsuit, claiming additional compensation. He argued that the offshore bonus, which he received for working at sea, should be included in the calculation of his severance pay and notice pay. The company, however, contended that the agreement was a fair settlement and that the plaintiff had no further claims.

The Court of First Instance’s Findings:

The labor court of Thailand found that the plaintiff had willingly signed the termination agreement, fully aware of his dismissal and the compensation offered. The court noted that the plaintiff, with his extensive experience and knowledge, was not coerced into signing the agreement. The company had faced financial difficulties, leading to the dismissal of over 100 employees in similar positions.

The court ruled that the offshore bonus was indeed part of the plaintiff’s wages and should be included in the severance and notice pay calculations. However, the agreement signed by the plaintiff was deemed a valid compromise, binding both parties. As a result, the plaintiff had no further claims against the company.

person wearing white dress shirt signing contract

The Appeal Court Decision:

The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the agreement was unfair and that the company had taken advantage of him. The specialized court of appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, stating that the agreement was a lawful compromise and did not violate public order or morality. The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court’s Decision:

The supreme court (3805/2566) was tasked with determining whether the termination agreement was enforceable regarding the severance and notice pay. The court concluded that the plaintiff had signed the agreement voluntarily, with full knowledge of his rights and the compensation offered. The agreement was a legitimate compromise, and the plaintiff was bound by its terms. Consequently, the plaintiff had no further claims for additional compensation.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Voluntary Agreements: Employees who voluntarily sign termination agreements, fully aware of their rights and the compensation offered, are generally bound by those agreements.
  2. Inclusion of Bonuses: Bonuses, such as offshore bonuses, are considered part of wages and should be included in severance and notice pay calculations.
  3. Legal Compromises: Compromise agreements between employers and employees are enforceable if they do not violate public order or morality.
  4. Financial Difficulties: Companies facing financial difficulties may lawfully reduce their workforce, provided the dismissals are not discriminatory or unfair.

This case highlights the importance of understanding one’s rights and the implications of signing legal agreements. It serves as a reminder that fair and transparent negotiations are crucial in resolving employment disputes.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand: Purposed Changes to Personal Income Tax Exemption on Severance Pay

The Ministry of Finance has put forward a draft ministerial regulation to revise the personal income tax exemption on severance pay. This proposal aims to update the existing threshold established in clause 2(51) of Ministerial Regulation No. 126 (B.E. 2509), as amended by Ministerial Regulation No. 217 (B.E. 2542).

Current Exemption

Under the current ministerial regulation, employees receiving severance pay in accordance with the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 and State Enterprise Relations Act B.E. 2543 are eligible for tax exemption. This exemption applies to the portion of severance pay not exceeding the salary for the last 300 working days, with a maximum limit of 300,000 baht. Notably, this exemption excludes severance pay received due to retirement or the expiration of fixed-term employment contracts.

The existing regulation aligns with Section 118 of the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (No. 1), which mandates severance pay for employees with over 10 years of continuous service.

Legislative Changes

The Labor Protection Act B.E. 2562 (No. 7) amended Section 118, introducing a new severance pay rate for employees with over 20 years of continuous service. This amendment increased the severance pay to not less than the salary for the last 400 working days.

Proposed New Exemption

In response to these legislative changes, the Ministry of Finance has drafted a revised ministerial regulation. The key changes in the draft revised ministerial regulation are:

  1. Increasing the tax-exempt portion of severance pay to the amount not exceeding wages or salary for the last 400 working days.
  2. Raising the maximum exemption limit from 300,000 baht to 600,000 baht.
  3. Applying the new exemption to severance pay received from 1 January 2023 onwards.

Objectives

The proposed changes serve two main purposes:

  1. Aligning the tax exemption regulations with the amended Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541.
  2. Providing tax relief to employees facing termination, especially in light of economic challenges.

Implementation Status

The Cabinet has approved the draft revised ministerial regulation. It will come into effect upon publication in the Royal Gazette.

This revision aims to update the tax exemption on severance pay to reflect recent changes in labor law and to provide increased financial support to employees during employment transitions.

Source: International Business August 2024 (antea-int.com)

Read Full Article

on by

Proposed Changes to Personal Income Tax Exemption on Severance Pay

The Ministry of Finance has put forward a draft ministerial regulation to revise the personal income tax exemption on severance pay. This proposal aims to update the existing threshold established in clause 2(51) of Ministerial Regulation No. 126 (B.E. 2509), as amended by Ministerial Regulation No. 217 (B.E. 2542).

Current Exemption

Under the current ministerial regulation, employees receiving severance pay in accordance with the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 and State Enterprise Relations Act B.E. 2543 are eligible for tax exemption. This exemption applies to the portion of severance pay not exceeding the salary for the last 300 working days, with a maximum limit of 300,000 baht. Notably, this exemption excludes severance pay received due to retirement or the expiration of fixed-term employment contracts.

The existing regulation aligns with Section 118 of the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (No. 1), which mandates severance pay for employees with over 10 years of continuous service.

Legislative Changes

The Labor Protection Act B.E. 2562 (No. 7) amended Section 118, introducing a new severance pay rate for employees with over 20 years of continuous service. This amendment increased the severance pay to not less than the salary for the last 400 working days.

Proposed New Exemption

In response to these legislative changes, the Ministry of Finance has drafted a revised ministerial regulation. The key changes in the draft revised ministerial regulation are:

  1. Increasing the tax-exempt portion of severance pay to the amount not exceeding wages or salary for the last 400 working days.
  2. Raising the maximum exemption limit from 300,000 baht to 600,000 baht.
  3. Applying the new exemption to severance pay received from 1 January 2023 onwards.
group of persons wearing yellow safety helmet during daytime

Objectives

The proposed changes serve two main purposes:

  1. Aligning the tax exemption regulations with the amended Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541.
  2. Providing tax relief to employees facing termination, especially in light of economic challenges.

Implementation Status

The Cabinet has approved the draft revised ministerial regulation. It will come into effect upon publication in the Royal Gazette.

This revision aims to update the tax exemption on severance pay to reflect recent changes in labor law and to provide increased financial support to employees during employment transitions.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Minimum Wage Rate 2024

Considering the Thai economic position in October 2023, it is in the process of recovering based on private sector demand for consumption and investment, as well as the Thai economy’s trend in 2024, which is expected to expand more than 2023. In addition, when considering the prices of consumer products necessary for the living of employees, it was found as a higher price and consequently, employees’ costs and costs of living have grown. As a result, the wage committee has determined that employees’ original salary rates should be raised.

As for the aforementioned concerns, the wage committee, pursuant to the Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended in B.E.2551 (2008), issued the Notification of the Wage Committee on Minimum Wage Rate (No.12), imposing provisions to add 2-16 baht to the previous minimum wage rate for labors in Thailand, resulting in a minimum wage rate of 330 – 370 baht.

a laptop near the dollars and papers on a wooden table

This new minimum wage rate takes effect on 1 January 2024, and employers of all types of businesses, except those specifically specified in the Notification, such as non-economic businesses and central, regional, and local government administration, must pay their employees at or above this rate, regardless of race, nationality, age, or gender.

Additionally, the minimum wage rate for employees only in hotel businesses has been increased up to 400 baht in some areas of some provinces, such as for hotels operating in the Pathum Wan and Watthana districts of Bangkok or for every hotel operating in Phuket province, the employers must comply with such minimum wage rate as of 13 April 2024, according to the Wage Committee’s Notification on Minimum Wage Rate for Hotel Business announced on 27 March 2024.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

New Medical Expenses to be Paid to the Employees

The Minister of Labor issues the new Ministerial Regulations on Medical Expenses Paid by the Employer B.E.2567 (2024) (issue no.2) (“Ministerial Regulation”) to reduce the problem of the rate of medical expenses paid by the employer that is not in line with the economic dynamic, as well as to make it more appropriated and cover treatment methods for employees who experience danger or illness in the diverse form of severe head injury.

As a result, this Ministerial Regulation amended two major provisions of the Ministerial Regulation on Medical Expenses Paid by Employer B.E.2563 (2020) as follows:

  • Amending the rate of the maximum medical expenses paid by the employer from THB 50,000 to THB 65,000.  

When the employees experience danger or illness, the employer shall pay the medical expenses as much as the actual medical expenses but not more than THB 65,000 (Section 2).

close up photo of a stethoscope
  • Amending the conditions for receiving the maximum of the medical expenses not more than THB 100,000 if the medical expenses in Section 2 are not sufficient for experiencing severe head injury and must undergo craniotomy to experience severe head injury.

In case the medical expenses paid according to Section 2 are not sufficient, the employer shall pay the additional medical expenses as much as the paid actual medical expenses but not more than THB 100,000 for experiencing danger or illness of employees in the following condition:

  1. Severe injuries to multiple internal organs required corrective surgery.
  2. Severe injuries to multiple bones required corrective surgery.
  3. Severe head injury.
  4. Severe injury to the spine, spinal cord, or nerve roots.
  5. Experiencing a difficult organ surgery requiring microsurgery.
  6. Experiencing danger from fire, scalding water, heat, cold, chemicals, radiation, electricity or explosion, to the point of loss of skin down to the dermis from twenty-five percent of the body’s surface area.
  7. Experiencing danger or other illness which is severe or chronic as announced by the Minister of Labor.

This Ministerial Regulation was effective on 25 April B.E.2567 (2024) and the effectiveness covers those who have experienced danger or illness before this Ministerial Regulation has been effective, but such employees are still receiving medical treatment.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles