blackcab

26 minutes ago, SbuxPlease said:

I'll send one of my Thai staff instead and hope we can calm things down by presenting what we know.

Set absolute boundaries, such as you must be contacted and agree any compromise.

26 minutes ago, SbuxPlease said:

In a similar situation in the the west...

Stop thinking like that. It will drive you nuts.

26 minutes ago, SbuxPlease said:

It would appear the labor officer has no such power to compel discovery or force either side to comply with his requests unless things move deeper into the court.

Stage 1 is mediation. There is no compulsion to agree, however they can demand employment records, etc. Clearly, the burden of most demands falls on the employer.

22 minutes ago, SbuxPlease said:

If the costs for the employees to press forward is low or nothing, what is the reason for the court to do the job on their behalf? It's great they get a fair shake at representation against us "bad guy" business owners, but what's to slow down a disgruntled employee who's abusing the system?

 

At what stage would he or she begin to incur legal costs that would test their desire to stand behind their claims?

The thing is that Thai businesses don't normally incur legal costs because the don't send a lawyer. They just send a more senior Thai member of staff.

The Court doesn't just do the job on the employee's behalf - you misunderstand the process. From a Western perspective a Court is an adversarial arena where those with the best argument and cleverest use of legal precedent often win.

It's not like that here. Because the Court sometimes deals with fairly uneducated employees and also employers, the Court asks the facts from all sides, then makes it's decision.

There is no legal argument because the law is remarkably clear.

What slows down a disgruntled employee? Not much, but these cases are finalised in weeks, not months or years. For most businesses the cost is minimal and that's just the way it is.

When are costs incurred? When either party decides to hire a lawyer. The employee may not get a payout, but they will have the satisfaction of knowing you had to pay out.

With first stage mediation neither party has to accept. The Court always tries this way first to save Court time. Chances are your ex employees won't accept as it costs them nothing to push on.

If either party does not accept then the matter goes to a formal hearing. My advice would be to pay whatever is ordered by the Court at this point (if anything), because any appeal would cost massively more than any payout to a Thai worker.

Please keep us updated. These cases are an invaluable resource for others to read at a later date.

We send a foreign manager and a bilingual Thai employee.

It's not really a matter for a lawyer as there is no real legal argument. You present your facts and the Labour Court decides.

It's really just a case of whether the staff time costs more than the lawyer's time.

Everything you can imagine is in stock. You can check items and stock levels online:

https://m.ikea.com/th/en/

Moved to the lofty environs of the Suvarnabhumi Airport forum for more visibility.

A flame post and a reply have been removed.

On 6/3/2018 at 1:43 AM, BEVUP said:

 If he takes out Lease or Usufrut he must put a third party on it as it will make it harder for the owner to transfer as it will/may effect the third party

Affecting a third party only matters if he is married to the usufructor or lessor.

Having a usufruct or lease registered against a property does not stop the owner selling it. It just makes it unlikely (but far from impossible) someone else will buy.

Yes and no...

The closest a structure can be to the boundary wall without the consent of your neighbour is 50cms, but that depends on the height of the structure.

There is, however, an exception for "temporary" structures. If you can find a way to make the structure temporary then you are good to go.

Alternatively you can always go "at risk" and see if anyone complains. Just bare in mind that if they do you will have to chop it back 50cms.

33 minutes ago, grollies said:

In that case would you care to elaborate?

As the OP stated, Par See Rong Ruan is a tax collected by the District Offices on most commercial buildings or most buildings used for a commercial use.

The tax rate is 12.5 per cent of annual income or 12.5 per cent of assessed value, whichever is higher. No tax is payable during vacant periods, but it is up to the owner to prove the vacant period was truly vacant.

The tax is not payable on bare land.

Moved to the Real Estate forum.

The OP is referring to Par See Rong Ruan.

A troll post has been removed.

A post discussing moderation has been removed.

A post in a foreign language has been removed.

English is the only acceptable language anywhere on ThaiVisa including Classifieds, except within the Thai language forum, where of course using Thai is allowed.

Moved to the Health Forum for specialist advice.

Moved to the DIY forum for expert technical assistance. 

An off topic post has been removed.

Moved to the libation forum. It was either that or the education forum.

26 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

I have been on a retirement extension for years, went in today to renew and was fined for not filling out this TM30, your time will come I expect

Which Immigration office please?

A flame post has been removed and the poster has been suspended.

I do not want to close this thread as I believe it is important for everyone to be able to state their beliefs and opinions, even if the opinions of some members are very different from the opinions of other members.

Please do post, but please also post in a civil manner. Flaming other members is not the best way to get your point across.

Are your course materials all written in Thai?

I have removed a large number of posts in this thread, and warnings have been issued. If members continue their uncivil posts then be assured I will issue posting holidays.