Jump to content
BANGKOK 23 May 2019 00:38
Sign in to follow this  
wangsuda

Thai Labor Law And Severance Pay

Recommended Posts

^I have, actually, though for obvious reasons I can't give details. Let's just say I'm familiar with organisations that voluntarily dot all the i's and cross all the t's. I'll try to locate and link the thread re. the Christian school (which I think was crossposted here, though it is a very long time ago).

The interpretation is that as long as the JOB ITSELF still exists, a teacher who is not allowed to remain in the position has effectively been terminated; thus, he is eligible for severance. This is why a distinction is made for truly 'temporary' contract jobs- not temporary employees!!! Otherwise, as I previously mentioned, there would be no full-time employees and no benefit obligations for any employer- which is why labour law is necessary.

I agree and this is an interesting read which seems to state that severance can actually kick in earlier than a full year of employment with non-renewal of a contract by the employer:

http://www.worldwideconsulting.com/thailand.htm

Lols

This Website can't even spell Thailand correctly: '...Generally, under Tailand employment laws...' and it's being used as a reference.

Anyway, this is the text you are referring to:

'Termination of Employment

Employment termination with cause (in which event the employer can terminate employment without notice and/or compensation) is governed by the provisions of Section 583 of the Civil and Commercial Code and Section 119 of the LPA, and includes gross negligence, willful disobedience, dishonesty or criminal act. When there is employment termination without cause, it is compulsory under employment laws that the employer make severance payment (in addition to notice) to the employee according to the length of unbroken service:

From 120 days but less than 1 year the amount is 30 days

1 year but less than 3 years the amount is 90 days

3 years but less than 6 years the amount is 180 days

6 years but less than 10 years the amount is 240 days

10 years and over the amount is 300 days'

I agree this says employment terminated without cause then the employer has to pay severance. But if a teacher reaches the end of his or her contract, that gives cause to end employment. Afterall, both parties agreed to end their working agreement on an agreed date. It's not 'without cause' if the contract expires. What is the point of a contract if it is meaningless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am following this closely. Where I work we are not renewing an unusually high number of employees. In one case, there is 'just' cause, with a paper trail and warnings. In a second, there is 'just' cause with no paper trail and it would be hard to support ('he said, she said). In the third, the position will be filled by a Thai national.

I spoke at length with the owner and expressed my concerns from a contractual basis. I was told that there is no reason to worry, they had been taken to court before and won. I also spoke to an attorney who said that in most of these cases, it is the employer who just 'folds' because it gets costly and time consuming to pursue.

So, now I am lost. I hate the idea of 'writing up' teachers everytime there is a complaint, but maybe that's the best recourse. In the past, I haven't because a lot of it is stuff that isn't directly related to education--it's things like breaking the dress code, drinking coffee in the classroom, sitting on the desks, etc.

I usually 'write them up' if it involves what would seem like a truly legal matter--such as 'hitting' or demeaning punishment, leaving the class unattended, excessive, unexplained (or unacceptable) absences, constant lates, tardies etc.

Thoughts from others would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^I have, actually, though for obvious reasons I can't give details. Let's just say I'm familiar with organisations that voluntarily dot all the i's and cross all the t's. I'll try to locate and link the thread re. the Christian school (which I think was crossposted here, though it is a very long time ago).

The interpretation is that as long as the JOB ITSELF still exists, a teacher who is not allowed to remain in the position has effectively been terminated; thus, he is eligible for severance. This is why a distinction is made for truly 'temporary' contract jobs- not temporary employees!!! Otherwise, as I previously mentioned, there would be no full-time employees and no benefit obligations for any employer- which is why labour law is necessary.

I agree and this is an interesting read which seems to state that severance can actually kick in earlier than a full year of employment with non-renewal of a contract by the employer:

http://www.worldwideconsulting.com/thailand.htm

Lols

This Website can't even spell Thailand correctly: '...Generally, under Tailand employment laws...' and it's being used as a reference.

Anyway, this is the text you are referring to:

'Termination of Employment

Employment termination with cause (in which event the employer can terminate employment without notice and/or compensation) is governed by the provisions of Section 583 of the Civil and Commercial Code and Section 119 of the LPA, and includes gross negligence, willful disobedience, dishonesty or criminal act. When there is employment termination without cause, it is compulsory under employment laws that the employer make severance payment (in addition to notice) to the employee according to the length of unbroken service:

From 120 days but less than 1 year the amount is 30 days

1 year but less than 3 years the amount is 90 days

3 years but less than 6 years the amount is 180 days

6 years but less than 10 years the amount is 240 days

10 years and over the amount is 300 days'

I agree this says employment terminated without cause then the employer has to pay severance. But if a teacher reaches the end of his or her contract, that gives cause to end employment. Afterall, both parties agreed to end their working agreement on an agreed date. It's not 'without cause' if the contract expires. What is the point of a contract if it is meaningless?

Wow! You caught the typo or misspelling in their writing. Congratulations!

Disregarding that sterling accomplishment on your part for the moment, are you aware that there are nations in the world where severance is required contemporaneously with a contract? No? Really, such places exist. Let's take Korea as an example. You work there under a contract and with a work visa for a year and you receive a year's severance. Work there six years under the same conditions and you receive six years of severance with each severance payment being equal to one month's salary of the annual contract you were working under at the time. You don't believe it? It can't happen? It would "make the contract meaningless?" Wrong. I did it. I got the six years of severance. Contracts and severance can exist at the same time. It's amazing what you can learn when you haven't spent your entire life teaching only in one country. So it is that Thailand 's Labour laws could and have been interpreted exactly along the same lines and based on what has been written here and elsewhere, it would be foolish not to pursue the question of severance where the employee is truly not voluntarily abandoning his or her position at the end of a contract but rather simply not being renewed by the employer for whatever reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced.

According to the Website you quoted:

(1) Severance is not payable if employment is terminated with just cause (gross misconduct etc.)

(2) Severance is payable if employment is terminated without just cause (unfair dismissal etc)

If you were to categorize employment terminated on an agreed date in an agreement signed by both parties (contract), I think you would have to put that under (1).

I'm sure severance exists in Korea post contract and I'm very happy for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it surely negates your "What is the point of a contract if it is meaningless?" as it clearly shows that such a situation can exist and contracts are not rendered "meaningless" only because severance is also required by law. Again, based on what has been written here and elsewhere, what does one have to lose by pursuing a claim for severance in Thailand where there is non-renewal by the employer at the end of a contract and the employee is not voluntarily leaving the position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it surely negates your "What is the point of a contract if it is meaningless?" as it clearly shows that such a situation can exist and contracts are not rendered "meaningless" only because severance is also required by law. Again, based on what has been written here and elsewhere, what does one have to lose by pursuing a claim for severance in Thailand where there is non-renewal by the employer at the end of a contract and the employee is not voluntarily leaving the position?

The question is rhetorical and not literal.

Still no evidence this has ever happened in Thailand whether it's a farang teacher or a Thai employee. Can you really believe a Thai employer would allow this situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not convinced.

According to the Website you quoted:

(1) Severance is not payable if employment is terminated with just cause (gross misconduct etc.)

(2) Severance is payable if employment is terminated without just cause (unfair dismissal etc)

If you were to categorize employment terminated on an agreed date in an agreement signed by both parties (contract), I think you would have to put that under (1).

I'm sure severance exists in Korea post contract and I'm very happy for you.

And if the employer continuously uses fix term contract for the same position, the court will recognize that this is actually a permanent position within the company, and that the employer is trying to abuse those fix term contract, to avoid paying severance pay, when due.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we use this example.

You work for a language school, lets say ECC, and they farm you out to one school. You've worked for ECC for 3 years and last year, signed your 3rd consecutive one-year contract.

According to some on here, that means you've worked for that school, via ECC for 3 consecutive years, not 3 periods of 1 year totaling 3 years.

With me so far?

Ok, on March 20th this year, at the end of the academic year, the school decide that they dont require the services of ECC anymore, but would rather sort out the provision of English teachers themselves.

Your job at the school is still available..........but you were never employed directly by the school, and your job at ECC is now NOT available.

ECC say they have no more work for you and that your contract will naturally expire on March 20th. Lets assume you did a good job and have done nothing to warrant being sacked.

Question. Do ECC have to pay severance?

**Please note, i use the name ECC for illustrative purposes only. I do not work for ECC nor have any axe to grind against them**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it surely negates your "What is the point of a contract if it is meaningless?" as it clearly shows that such a situation can exist and contracts are not rendered "meaningless" only because severance is also required by law. Again, based on what has been written here and elsewhere, what does one have to lose by pursuing a claim for severance in Thailand where there is non-renewal by the employer at the end of a contract and the employee is not voluntarily leaving the position?

The question is rhetorical and not literal.

Still no evidence this has ever happened in Thailand whether it's a farang teacher or a Thai employee. Can you really believe a Thai employer would allow this situation?

"Literal" = ijwt wrote:

"^I have, actually, though for obvious reasons I can't give details. Let's just say I'm familiar with organisations that voluntarily dot all the i's and cross all the t's. I'll try to locate and link the thread re. the Christian school (which I think was crossposted here, though it is a very long time ago).

The interpretation is that as long as the JOB ITSELF still exists, a teacher who is not allowed to remain in the position has effectively been terminated; thus, he is eligible for severance. This is why a distinction is made for truly 'temporary' contract jobs- not temporary employees!!! Otherwise, as I previously mentioned, there would be no full-time employees and no benefit obligations for any employer- which is why labour law is necessary."

Also, it's not about what "a Thai employer would allow this situation" but rather what Thai law requires. There wouldn't be labour laws anywhere if it only always came down to what an employer "would allow" in any given situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if the employer continuously uses fix term contract for the same position, the court will recognize that this is actually a permanent position within the company, and that the employer is trying to abuse those fix term contract, to avoid paying severance pay, when due.

Opinion or fact? IE are you a judge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Literal" = ijwt wrote:

but only produced anecdotal evidence... so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I phoned my local labour office and it was confirmed that severance isn't payable.

Please phone your local labour office and ask the same question if you really want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, it would appear that at least one legal scholar disagrees with what you were told while various decisions of the Thai Supreme Court now restrict the number of cases where severance does not have to be paid:

http://www.pattayamail.com/802/business.shtml

Please note this is not anecdotal. :o

I'll say it again, given what is written in the link above, one would be foolish not to pursue the question of severance if his or her contract were arbitrarily not renewed by an employer. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yet, it would appear that at least one legal scholar disagrees with what you were told while various decisions of the Thai Supreme Court now restrict the number of cases where severance does not have to be paid:

http://www.pattayamail.com/802/business.shtml

Please note this is not anecdotal. :o

I'll say it again, given what is written in the link above, one would be foolish not to pursue the question of severance if his or her contract were arbitrarily not renewed by an employer. :D

So if i m reading this correctly, it would appear that a number of renewed one-year contracts, which appear normal in teaching, DOES not constitute temporary work, and in fact, (say) 3 contracts of 1 year is actually 3 consecutive years work.

This would 'appear' to mean that severance pay is due at the natural end of a contract. (assuming that there are no factors of negligence etc that would be a cause for sacking)

So in my example above, where someone worked for 3 years for ECC, then they could expect severance pay.

Mopenyan, have i read it correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to throw a spanner in the works, but if there is an end-of-contract bonus paid, does this constitute severence (or a portion, thereof). If it's given every year, would it then negate the severence due after several years of service?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...