We have never had a labour claim. Do we still need a review?

Never having had a claim is not the same as not being exposed. Labour liability accumulates quietly out of everyday practice — how overtime is calculated, how staff are classified, which contract template was copied years ago — and it surfaces all at once when the first person files. That first claimant is rarely the last, because whatever won their case usually applies to dozens of colleagues on the same terms. A review while there is no dispute is the only window in which you can correct the position without it looking like litigation tactics.

What does a Thai labour case actually turn on?

In practice, on documents and consistency rather than on who feels right. The recurring questions are whether the company had a clear written rule, whether the employee was genuinely notified of it, whether comparable cases were handled the same way, and whether there are contemporaneous records. The side whose paperwork is complete and internally consistent usually prevails, even where the facts are messy.

Are written work rules mandatory for our company?

Thai law requires an establishment to have written work rules once it reaches the statutory headcount, to make them known to employees, and to keep them available for inspection. The headcount that triggers this and the time allowed to act should be confirmed against your own facts with counsel. The more common problem we see is not the absence of work rules but rules that no longer match what the company actually does, which is worse than having none.

If we hire through a labour contractor, are we insulated?

Not automatically. Calling an arrangement a service or contracting agreement does not by itself displace employer responsibility. What is examined is the reality of the relationship — who directs the work, who sets the hours, who supplies the tools, and whether the work forms part of your core business. Principals are regularly drawn in even though they never paid the wages.

What is different about foreign employees?

Two layers apply at once. Thai employment protection generally applies to employees regardless of nationality, so 'we agreed something different' is an expensive assumption. Separately, the work documentation must match reality — the position, the workplace and the named employer. The usual failure is a mid-employment change nobody updated: the person was moved to another business unit, promoted, or posted to a different province, and the paperwork never followed. One dispute then becomes an employment problem and an immigration problem simultaneously.

How long does a review take and how disruptive is it?

It depends on headcount and on how many engagement models you run. An organisation with one contract template and one timekeeping system moves far faster than one mixing permanent staff, daily hire, subcontracted labour and 'consultants'. Most of the work is document review that can be done off-site; only the HR and line-manager interviews require your team's time.

The Thai Labour Compliance Audit: What Foreign Employers Get Wrong Before Anyone Sues

The hardest question in the management meeting

When head office asks "is our Thailand operation compliant with local employment law?", the most common answer is "we think so — we've never had a problem."

That is not an answer, and it is usually not true.

Labour liability in Thailand rarely comes from one dramatic event. It accumulates from everyday practice repeated over years — how overtime is paid, how people are classified, a contract template copied from another company — and then surfaces all at once on the day the first person files.

In labour disputes, the first claimant is almost never the last. Whatever wins their case tends to apply identically to everyone on the same terms.

This guide is written for the HR director, country manager or regional HR lead who has to answer that question — not for a dismissed employee. If you are on the employee side of a termination, our severance and termination guide is the one you want.

General information only, not advice on a specific matter. Headcount thresholds, filing deadlines and rates should be confirmed against your own facts with counsel.

1. What a labour case actually turns on

Employers assume cases are decided on who was right. In practice they are decided on what can still be proved two years later.

The recurring questions are always the same:

Was there a written rule covering this?
Was the employee genuinely notified of it, and how would you show that?
Have comparable situations been handled the same way?
Do records exist that were made at the time, not afterwards?

The last point matters most. Documents created after a dispute begins carry far less weight than contemporaneous records, and sometimes damage the credibility of the whole file.

The rule that governs everything below: if you cannot prove it, treat it as not done.

2. Contracts and work rules

The more common problem is not missing documents. It is documents that no longer describe what the company does.

What to check:

Which version is actually in force — many companies have work rules drafted at incorporation while the operative policy lives in an HR mailbox
Evidence that employees were notified — posting, signed acknowledgement, or an internal system with a retrievable history
Conflicts between the contract and the work rules — where they conflict, the outcome rarely favours the party that drafted them
Language — staff who cannot read Thai need a version they understand, and the documents should state which language governs if the versions diverge
The statutory trigger for having work rules at all — it is tied to headcount, so fast-growing companies frequently cross the threshold without noticing

3. Wages, overtime and holiday pay

This is where liability compounds, because small errors multiply by headcount and by years.

What counts as "wages" — regular payments may form part of the base for calculating other entitlements even where the company labels them allowances or benefits. The label is not decisive.
Flat overtime allowances — a fixed monthly sum with no underlying time records is the easiest arrangement to challenge.
Managers and sales staff — some categories are treated differently, but calling someone a manager does not place them in an exception. Actual authority is what counts.
Timekeeping — where records are absent or unreliable, the party carrying the record-keeping duty is the party that suffers.
Untaken leave — accrual and payment-in-lieu should be settled in policy in advance, not negotiated when someone resigns.

4. Leave, benefits and the internal complaint route

Easy to dismiss as administration, but it carries real weight in a dispute.

The internal complaint channel is the last stop before a matter leaves the building. Employees do not usually start with a lawyer — they start by complaining to a supervisor, then to HR. If neither step produces a record, the matter jumps straight to a labour inspector or the court and the company learns of the problem only when it is served.

You want a channel that works without going through the supervisor who is the subject of the complaint, a record of every complaint including those resolved informally, and above all consistency — treating one person leniently and another strictly on identical facts is excellent evidence for the other side.

5. Who is actually your employee

The costliest category of error, because it applies to an entire group at once.

Arrangement in use	The question you must be able to answer
Labour supplied by a contractor	Who really directs the work, and is it part of your core business?
"Consultants" or freelancers who attend daily	Fixed hours, a supervisor, a permanent desk?
Daily-hire staff	How long has it run continuously, and is service being counted?
Fixed-term contracts	How many renewals, and is the work genuinely temporary?
Staff seconded from a group company	Who is the legal employer, and does service run continuously?

The test is the substance of the relationship, not the name on the agreement. A company using service contracts with people who attend every day under its direction risks being treated as the full employer retrospectively, with everything that follows.

6. Foreign staff files

Two layers of exposure sit on top of each other, and companies usually inspect only one.

Layer one — employment rights. Thai protection generally applies regardless of nationality, so assuming a foreign hire "agreed to different terms" is an expensive mistake.

Layer two — documentation matching reality. The position, workplace and named employer in the work documentation must correspond to what actually happens.

The usual point of failure is a change mid-employment that nobody updated — a move to another business unit, a promotion, a posting to a different province — discovered only when a termination is disputed, at which point one problem has become two. This connects directly to our visa and work permit guide.

7. HR data under PDPA

Employee data is the most sensitive personal data most organisations hold, yet privacy projects routinely cover customer data and skip HR entirely.

The HR-specific points worth revisiting are the lawful basis for handling applicant and employee data, retention after employment ends, internal access to personnel files, and transfers to an overseas parent. The detail is already in our PDPA compliance checklist, so it is not repeated here.

8. The employer's evidence file

If you act on only one section, make it this one. What should exist from day one, and usually does not on the day it is needed:

Signed employment contracts for everyone, with the annexes they reference
Proof of acknowledgement of the work rules and of every amendment
Time records and overtime approvals
Performance reviews done on the real cycle — not written up retrospectively before a dismissal
Written warnings with proof of delivery
Investigation records for complaints and disciplinary matters
Payment records with line items separated

Items 4 and 5 are where employers lose. A company that tolerated a performance problem for three years without recording anything, then dismisses for performance, struggles to explain why it only became a problem this month.

9. How a review runs, and when it is worth doing

A useful review is not reading the contract and pronouncing it compliant. It compares what is written, what is done, and what could be proved.

Collect — contracts, work rules, internal policies, sample payslips, time records, sample personnel files
Interview — HR and line managers, to see whether practice matches the documents
Rank — fix now, fix on the next cycle, or knowingly accept
Deliver — a report identifying each gap, its consequence and its priority, with corrected template documents

When it pays for itself: before a restructuring, transfer of functions or merger; after headcount crosses a statutory threshold; before any group termination; when the parent asks for a risk report or an investor runs diligence; and immediately after losing the first case, since the same defect usually applies to many more employees.

When it does not: running a review during live litigation without telling the lawyer handling the case, because documents created in the meantime can be used in ways you did not intend.

Summary

Area	The one question you must be able to answer
Work rules and contracts	Which version is in force, and can you prove notification?
Wages and overtime	Do real time records support what you paid?
Worker classification	On substance, is this group employed by us?
Foreign staff	Does the documentation match today's actual role?
Evidence file	If served tomorrow, what did we genuinely record at the time?

A review before there is a dispute costs less than one case — and far less than a series of them built on the same defect.

If a claim has already landed, this guide is the wrong starting point — see responding to a Labour Court claim or labour inspector order for what to do in the first 72 hours, then come back to this one afterwards to fix what the case exposed.

An initial consultation with our employment team is free — call +66 92 254 2045 or send us the details. Our full employment practice is at labour and employment services.

This guide is published by Suwanvara Law Firm — a Khon Kaen law firm established in 1986. General information only, not legal advice on a specific matter.