Compensation Upon Firing For Farang?

[LivinLOS]

Just seems to me if you have a set length contract.. That would mean its for a set duration unless specifically told otherwise.

It also seems the law as quoted says exactly that !!

[donna]

i feel like i am banging my head against a brick wall here, but lets try it one more time....

when you sign a 1 year contract with a company and the work you are doing for the company is part of the every day running of the business, this 1 year contract is not, in fact fixed term. it is assumed, as far as the labour laws go, and from what i have read on this thread, and from what my lawyer tells me, that it will continue.

if you sign a 1 year contract at, say a supermarket, in order to work on a project to install, say, new shelving, then when that shelving is in place and when the contract is up, its up.

you were employed to do a task that was outside the normal tasks that the regular staff perform, and this is classed as a special project.

so, as bendix says, a 1 year contract here is not seen as a 1 year contract.

[onethailand]

The issue of a continuing contract is only relevant if Donna has been deemed to be employed for less than a year. It is completely irrelevant but Donna is saying that this is what she has been told.

Donna - I'm not going to argue with you any more - suffice it to say that the law does not define a fixed-term contract in the way that you describe. It only describes what consitutes fixed-term for the purposes of determining severance. And it only applies to Paragraph 3, which is for people who have worked 3 years or longer. Your case will be thrown out if you make a claim which you are not entitled to. If you don't agree that's your entitlement - I'm just trying to help.

To other issues:

If you have worked for less than a year, and properly been served notice of termination and given one month's notice, and are NOT on a contract of fixed duration for ANY purpose and said contract expires normally - you are entitled to a month's severance. If you are given no notice, you are additionally entitled to one month's pay in lieu of notice.

[onethailand]

Aha... I *finally* found a copy of the LPA which I can copy and paste.

Section 118

An employer shall pay severance pay to an employee whose employment is terminated, as follows:

1. An employee who has worked for at least 120 consecutive days, but for less than one year shall be paid basic pay for not less than 30 days at the most recent rate of basic pay received by him or not less than the basic pay he received for work performed in the last 30 days in respect of an employee who is rewarded on the basis of his output;

2. An employee who has worked continuously for at least one year but less than three years shall be paid basic pay for not less than 90 days at the most recent rate of basic pay received by him or not less than the basic pay for work performed in the last 90 days in respect of an employee who is rewarded on the basis of his output;

3. An employee who has worked consecutively for at least three years but less than six years shall be paid basic pay for not less than 180 days at the most recent rate of basic pay received by him or not less than the basic pay for work performed in the last 180 days in respect of an employee who is rewarded on the basis of his output;

4. An employee who has worked consecutively for at least six years but less than 10 years shall be paid basic pay for not less than 240 days at the most recent rate of basic pay received by him or not less than the basic pay for work performed in the last 240 days in respect of an employee who is rewarded on the basis of his output;

5. An employee who has worked for more than 10 years consecutively shall be paid basic pay for not less than 300 days at the most recent rate of basic pay received by him or not less than the basic pay for work performed in the last 300 days in respect of an employee who is rewarded on the basis of his output.

Termination of employment in this Section shall mean any act of an employer which prevents an employee from continuing to work and receive his basic pay therefore, whether due to the termination of an employment contract or for any other reason, and shall include the situation where an employee cannot work and be paid because the employer can no longer operate its business.

The provisions of Paragraph 1 shall not apply to an employee whose period of employment is of a fixed duration and whose employment is terminated at the expiration of that duration.

Employment of a fixed duration referred to in Paragraph 3 shall be said to exist in the case of employment on a special project, which is not in the normal way of business or trade of the employer, where there is a fixed schedule for commencement and completion of work; or for work of a temporary nature with a fixed schedule for its commencement or completion; or for seasonal work in respect of which employees are only engaged during that season; provided that the work must be completed within a period of two years and the employer and employee have entered into a written agreement at or prior to the commencement of employment.

The formatting is mine. The Act in its entirety can be found at http://tipinasia.info/TH/law-info.php?l=en&id=25&t=N

You do not qualify under paragraph 3 - and thus your claim would be invalid.

[LivinLOS]

i feel like i am banging my head against a brick wall here, but lets try it one more time....

when you sign a 1 year contract with a company and the work you are doing for the company is part of the every day running of the business, this 1 year contract is not, in fact fixed term. it is assumed, as far as the labour laws go, and from what i have read on this thread, and from what my lawyer tells me, that it will continue.

if you sign a 1 year contract at, say a supermarket, in order to work on a project to install, say, new shelving, then when that shelving is in place and when the contract is up, its up.

you were employed to do a task that was outside the normal tasks that the regular staff perform, and this is classed as a special project.

so, as bendix says, a 1 year contract here is not seen as a 1 year contract.

If Section 17 says that "a Contract of Employment shall expire upon the completion of the period specified in the Contract of Employment without the need to give advance notice." doesn't that contradict what you are saying 100% is clear legal terms ??

I cant read that any other way than (very clearly and explicitly) saying they dont need to give notice IF they do not want you back for another contract.

[bendix]

No

I know it sounds strange but the wording of the law is not great.

You're right to suggest that in the Act a contract is a contract is a contract and so not entitled to severance BUT - for the purposes of the Act - it only deems certain type of employment as being valid fixed term contracts and those we've mentioned already - project work, seasonal work etc.

In other words, while it doesnt expressly say it, the law is implicitly cracking down on invalid contracts wherein an employer tries to set up a fixed term contract to avoid (erroneously) the rather employee friendly severance payments.

I don't want to get into a terminal discussion about this. I have asked no fewer than three Baker & McKenzie lawyers and they all support my view. I have similarly asked Sunbelt. I have asked Bakers HR people. All of them say that not only is my reading correct (illogical as it might sound to our western ears) BUT it is also backed extensively by Labour Court case law.

Hey, if it works for us, don't fight it . .

[onethailand]

You're right to suggest that in the Act a contract is a contract is a contract and so not entitled to severance BUT - for the purposes of the Act - it only deems certain type of employment as being valid fixed term contracts and those we've mentioned already - project work, seasonal work etc.

Again this is not correct. The only time a fixed-term contract is excluded is for an employee who has worked for three years or more. The Act does *not* otherwise define fixed-term contracts.

In other words, while it doesnt expressly say it, the law is implicitly cracking down on invalid contracts wherein an employer tries to set up a fixed term contract to avoid (erroneously) the rather employee friendly severance payments.

I don't want to get into a terminal discussion about this. I have asked no fewer than three Baker & McKenzie lawyers and they all support my view. I have similarly asked Sunbelt. I have asked Bakers HR people. All of them say that not only is my reading correct (illogical as it might sound to our western ears) BUT it is also backed extensively by Labour Court case law.

An employer cannot escape from the requirement to pay severance - in this you are entirely correct. However, as I have repeatedly pointed out, this can only be done where a fixed-term contract applies to an employee who has worked three years or more, in which case the fixed-term contract may only be for "special business" or "seasonal or temporary work". I posted the relevant part of the LPA above and it is not in the least bit fuzzy.

What you should do is ask the B&M lawyers exactly *when* and under what circumstances a fixed-term contract becomes irrelevant for the purposes of determining severance pay, as opposed to "can a company structure contracts in order to avoid severance pay".

It is not possible to infer in general that "fixed-term contracts" are only for "special business" or "seasonal or temporary work" and that all other contracts cannot by law be called "fixed-term" or "fixed-duration". This is what Donna is implying and I assume that you support this view - if so, I would appreciate seeing an example, or a relevant section of the LPA which supports this contention.

[Bredbury Blue]

Aha... I *finally* found a copy of the LPA which I can copy and paste.

Section 118

An employer shall pay severance pay to an employee whose employment is terminated, as follows:

2. An employee who has worked continuously for at least one year but less than three years shall be paid basic pay for not less than 90 days at the most recent rate of basic pay received by him or not less than the basic pay for work performed in the last 90 days in respect of an employee who is rewarded on the basis of his output;

The Act in its entirety can be found at http://tipinasia.info/TH/law-info.php?l=en&id=25&t=N

The link is very useful, thanks.

"Basic Pay" means the money which the employer and the employee mutually agree is to be paid in return for work done in accordance with the employment contract during normal working hours on an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or other periodic basis or to be paid upon the basis of output of the employee during normal working hours, and also includes money which the employer pays whilst the employee is on holiday or taking other leave and during which time the employee did not work but nevertheless is such in respect of which he is entitled to receive payment under this Act.

The quote above from the Act refers to "basic pay", and the definition from the Act of "basic pay" i've found and pasted just above. If i get paid monthly payments termed (i) base pay, (ii) accomodation allowance, (iii) transport allowance and (iv) energy allowance, and i get paid those 4 items of remuneration "whilst the employee [me] is on holiday or taking other leave and during which time the employee did not work" (as stated in the Act), then:

(1) should my 90 days severance payment include all 4 items (i would think so), and,

(2) as the compnany has agreed to pay me for any unused annual leave when i actually get served my termination notice, should the rate per day for each unused day be based on all 4 (as i believe) or just (i) as they believe

Edited July 31, 2007 by Bredbury Blue

[onethailand]

Aha... I *finally* found a copy of the LPA which I can copy and paste.

Section 118

An employer shall pay severance pay to an employee whose employment is terminated, as follows:

2. An employee who has worked continuously for at least one year but less than three years shall be paid basic pay for not less than 90 days at the most recent rate of basic pay received by him or not less than the basic pay for work performed in the last 90 days in respect of an employee who is rewarded on the basis of his output;

The Act in its entirety can be found at http://tipinasia.info/TH/law-info.php?l=en&id=25&t=N

The link is very useful, thanks.

"Basic Pay" means the money which the employer and the employee mutually agree is to be paid in return for work done in accordance with the employment contract during normal working hours on an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or other periodic basis or to be paid upon the basis of output of the employee during normal working hours, and also includes money which the employer pays whilst the employee is on holiday or taking other leave and during which time the employee did not work but nevertheless is such in respect of which he is entitled to receive payment under this Act.

The quote above from the Act refers to "basic pay", and the definition from the Act of "basic pay" i've found and pasted just above. If i get paid monthly payments termed (i) base pay, (ii) accomodation allowance, (iii) transport allowance and (iv) energy allowance, and i get paid those 4 items of remuneration "whilst the employee [me] is on holiday or taking other leave and during which time the employee did not work" (as stated in the Act), then:

(1) should my 90 days severance payment include all 4 items (i would think so), and,

(2) as the compnany has agreed to pay me for any unused annual leave when i actually get served my termination notice, should the rate per day for each unused day be based on all 4 (as i believe) or just (i) as they believe

I have a distinct feeling that you will only get the base pay in the first instance. And in the second instance, you would only get base pay because the allowances were paid irrespective of whether you were on leave or not - had you taken your leave you still would have gotten exactly the same amount. The only difference is that you did additional work in lieu of your leave and thus you are entitled to receive salary in lieu of leave.

This is, however, not based on any fact that I have read - just a hunch. You'd be best off consulting with a lawyer specializing in employee rights.

[Bredbury Blue]

Aha... I *finally* found a copy of the LPA which I can copy and paste.

Section 118

An employer shall pay severance pay to an employee whose employment is terminated, as follows:

2. An employee who has worked continuously for at least one year but less than three years shall be paid basic pay for not less than 90 days at the most recent rate of basic pay received by him or not less than the basic pay for work performed in the last 90 days in respect of an employee who is rewarded on the basis of his output;

The Act in its entirety can be found at http://tipinasia.info/TH/law-info.php?l=en&id=25&t=N

The link is very useful, thanks.

"Basic Pay" means the money which the employer and the employee mutually agree is to be paid in return for work done in accordance with the employment contract during normal working hours on an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or other periodic basis or to be paid upon the basis of output of the employee during normal working hours, and also includes money which the employer pays whilst the employee is on holiday or taking other leave and during which time the employee did not work but nevertheless is such in respect of which he is entitled to receive payment under this Act.

The quote above from the Act refers to "basic pay", and the definition from the Act of "basic pay" i've found and pasted just above. If i get paid monthly payments termed (i) base pay, (ii) accomodation allowance, (iii) transport allowance and (iv) energy allowance, and i get paid those 4 items of remuneration "whilst the employee [me] is on holiday or taking other leave and during which time the employee did not work" (as stated in the Act), then:

(1) should my 90 days severance payment include all 4 items (i would think so), and,

(2) as the compnany has agreed to pay me for any unused annual leave when i actually get served my termination notice, should the rate per day for each unused day be based on all 4 (as i believe) or just (i) as they believe

I have a distinct feeling that you will only get the base pay in the first instance. And in the second instance, you would only get base pay because the allowances were paid irrespective of whether you were on leave or not - had you taken your leave you still would have gotten exactly the same amount. The only difference is that you did additional work in lieu of your leave and thus you are entitled to receive salary in lieu of leave.

This is, however, not based on any fact that I have read - just a hunch. You'd be best off consulting with a lawyer specializing in employee rights.

Actually this is an interesting one. I've checked this point out with four (4) lawyer colleagues here and its almost 50:50. The two that are a definite yes, believe that base pay / wage / salary includes all that you would normally receive, while the other two lawyers are more of maybe's than no's. To me it is a definite yes based upon the bits i'll highlight:

"Basic Pay" means the money which the employer and the employee mutually agree is to be paid in return for work done in accordance with the employment contract during normal working hours on an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or other periodic basis or to be paid upon the basis of output of the employee during normal working hours, and also includes money which the employer pays whilst the employee is on holiday or taking other leave and during which time the employee did not work but nevertheless is such in respect of which he is entitled to receive payment under this Act.

Anybody else have an opinion?

[Bredbury Blue]

Actually i've just had another read of the '98 labour act referred to in (1) http://tipinasia.info/TH/law-info.php?l=en&id=25&t=N and note it differs to the (2) actual '98 labour act translation and as such i would not recommend its use - better to use (2).

In (2), section 5 refers to "wages", which is defined as:

"Wages means agreed money between an Employer and an Employee to be paid in return for work done under a Contract of Employment for regular working periods on an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or other period of time basis, or on the basis of piecework done during the normal working time of a Working Day and includes money to be paid by an Employer to an Employee on Holiday or on Leave during which the Employee does not work but is entitled to the money under this Act", and

Chapter 11 Severance Pay actually refers to "if the Employee has worked for an uninterupted period of one year but less than three years, he or she shall be entitled to receive payment of not less than his or her last rate of Wages for ninety days, or of not less than his or her Wages for the last ninety days for an Employee who receives Wages on piece rate basis".

Edited August 1, 2007 by Bredbury Blue

[expatman]

Is severance pay tax-free ?

- Yes, I believe it is. I was "terminated" when a Thai company I was working for closed shop in 1999 to avoid paying off non-performing USD bank loans taken out prior to the 1997 crash. The severance pay was not included in the final document they issued to me detailing taxable income and tax deducted. In my case I had a written open-ended contract (no fixed termination date) but still had to argue with them and wait about three months for the money. I was willing to wait only because they immediately set up a new company and (re)hired me and most of the other employees (who also got severence pay), except for a few they wanted to get rid of. So in this case only the banks got screwed and most people got a bonus !

What happened to the question about an employee being forced to retire at 60 ??????

- I'd like to hear something on this, as it may happen to me in another 2 years. The company (same one)offers minimal benefits (read : none), so the severence pay would be a nice retirement bonus.

[bendix]

I've said everything I want to say on this subject. I now leave it free to onethailand who, irrespective of what employment he might or might not have, knows much more about both the theory and, more importantly, the practical interpretation of subject than the most experienced employment law partners of the largest law firm in Thailand (and the world).

I'm outa here . . . .

Edited August 1, 2007 by bendix

[A_Traveller]

I've not contributed to this since I know what I don't know.

However, irrespective of him using irregardless {lines are called for I think} and despite his best endeavours to hold the award for curmudgeon of the board, I'll just say that Bendix has taken the time to explain with concision and precision the position herein.

I'm sure that his advice will assist both the posters herein and others who come across this thread subsequently looking for advice, and it has been freely given.

For what it's worth, well played sir.

Regards

/edit typo//

Edited August 1, 2007 by A_Traveller

[onethailand]

I've said everything I want to say on this subject. I now leave it free to onethailand who, irrespective of what employment he might or might not have, knows much more about both the theory and, more importantly, the practical interpretation of subject than the most experienced employment law partners of the largest law firm in Thailand (and the world).

I'm outa here . . . .

As you have not given examples of your "cases", nor provided any direct copy of regulations stated in the LPA, I can only assume that your theory is flawed for one reason or another. I don't know how you presented your case to B&M, or whether it was even the case here in question - I do know that I can show you the relevant clauses and you can make your interpretations any way you like - but it does appear to me that your "case study" does not match up with how the law is written.

I don't think that I know more than B&M - but I sure don't know that you asked the right questions of them. And I know I am not afraid to admit when I've made a mistake - how about you?

'Nuff said. I'm not going to get into a slinging match - I am only trying to present information backed up by the relevant clauses in the LPA.

[bendix]

Irregardless (with a nod to A-Traveller) of my promise to add no more to this, one more comment.

Onethailand. You make a good point re the text of the law. Apologies for my previous curmudgeonly (another nod to A-Traveller) post.

But could I make one over-riding point about the state of Thailand's written statutes, of which the LPA is one. By western standards, they are appallingly drafted. They are full of holes big enough to drive buses through. They are vague and directional. A good example is the new Product Liability legislation being drafted - it's farcical.

The real issue is the law AS IT IS INTERPRETED in practice. And in this case it supports my contentions. If I can find some cases, I'll pass them through. Such cases arent widely reported as case law for obvious reasons, but i'll see what i can dig up.

[A_Traveller]

May I just add that any English translation of any act in Thailand is legally viewed as unofficial and is only for guidance. Ultimately the law in Thailand in the Thai language is the reference point. It is therefore unwise, especially where it has been noted that the text {in English} is curiously worded, to assume that an interpretation of the English version will be 100% accurate.

Ultimately matters are decided by Thai lawyers {no falang may practice law in the Kingdom} in front of a Thai court with reference to precedent.

Regards

/edit typo //

Edited August 1, 2007 by A_Traveller

[onethailand]

I agree that the Thai translation will always prevail when there is a difference in interpretation - this is unavoidable.

And yes, I will definitely agree that there are not only holes in the law, but often times vagueness - even deliberately - so as to give them the power to interpret the vagueness any way they see it.

Some of the laws being drafted now are plain daft, no question about that. We have TV rating systems coming into effect that are perhaps needed, but poorly thought out. We have a crazy IT law being considered which will force ISPs to keep data of all access by subscribers for 90 days - can you say draconian? We even have censorship of the Net in Thailand - at all ISPs but one, strangely enough the one is Internet Thailand, the one which was originally a government body (thank you Trin).

Because I cannot read Thai, I am certainly in no position to detect any difference between the two. I do however find it hard to believe that a reference to "paragraph 3" could possibly be misinterpreted.

I would still like to hear of your various cases, Bendix, becaue no matter what we will all learn from them.

[Bredbury Blue]

I love it when you guys get in to it, but unfortunatley when you do you miss the main points / qustions of posters who are seeking help / answers, examples being:

1. Is severance pay taxed? If so at what rate?

2. '98 labour act section 5 refers to "Wages", and Chapter 11 Severance Pay refers to "if the Employee has worked for an uninterupted period of one year but less than three years, he or she shall be entitled to receive payment of not less than his or her last rate of Wages for ninety days...". If i get paid a monthly Wage of items termed (i) base pay, (ii) accomodation allowance, (iii) transport allowance and (iv) energy allowance, and if i get paid those 4 items when i'm on holiday leave or on sick leave, then:

(2.1) should my 90 days severance payment include all 4 items (i would think so)?

(2.2) as the company has agreed to pay me for any unused annual leave when i actually get served my termination notice, should the rate per day for each unused day be based on all 4 (as i believe) or just (i) base pay as they believe?

[Ijustwannateach]

I would guess that all pay gets taxed (at whatever rate your income puts you in- but if you retired that might be minimal).

No one's fielded my question about forced retirement (due to age, company policy, health, etc.) but from what I can see of the law severance counts very liberally ("for any other reason"), EXCEPT in the few circumstances they mention (voluntary quitting, absence without leave, felonious behaviour, contract violation, etc., etc.)

"Steven"

[onethailand]

I love it when you guys get in to it, but unfortunatley when you do you miss the main points / qustions of posters who are seeking help / answers, examples being:

1. Is severance pay taxed? If so at what rate?

2. '98 labour act section 5 refers to "Wages", and Chapter 11 Severance Pay refers to "if the Employee has worked for an uninterupted period of one year but less than three years, he or she shall be entitled to receive payment of not less than his or her last rate of Wages for ninety days...". If i get paid a monthly Wage of items termed (i) base pay, (ii) accomodation allowance, (iii) transport allowance and (iv) energy allowance, and if i get paid those 4 items when i'm on holiday leave or on sick leave, then:

(2.1) should my 90 days severance payment include all 4 items (i would think so)?

(2.2) as the company has agreed to pay me for any unused annual leave when i actually get served my termination notice, should the rate per day for each unused day be based on all 4 (as i believe) or just (i) base pay as they believe?

We don't miss the main points - we either don't have an answer, or choose not to answer for whatever reason - you're not being deliberately ignored. And I've already given you my opinion on this.

[bendix]

1. Yes, it's taxed but not at the same rate as normal income. Or, more accurately, it's taxed at the same rate as whatever marginal rate applies to you BUT a portion of it is tax-free. The amount depends on your circumstances. Sorry, I can't give specifics but I'm led to believe I(but can't state categorically) that the maximum that is allowed to be tax-free is 50%. But I'm putting a big caveat on this.

2.1 Actually, mate, the discussions aren't irrelevant to this question. As we said, the written statute law is vague in many areas and the translation is worse to the point of being meaningless. My best guess is that the allowances would be counted as income but it's a grey area. I can't guess how a labour court would rule on this, given that the normal reason for having such 'allowances' is to get a tax break. On the other hand, Labour Courts have no link to Tax departments. Ha sip / ha sip. If pushed to make a call, I'd say that in the absence of specific guidance in the legislation, the labour courts would likely rule in your favour.

2.2 As above

[Bredbury Blue]

1. Yes, it's taxed but not at the same rate as normal income. Or, more accurately, it's taxed at the same rate as whatever marginal rate applies to you BUT a portion of it is tax-free. The amount depends on your circumstances. Sorry, I can't give specifics but I'm led to believe I(but can't state categorically) that the maximum that is allowed to be tax-free is 50%. But I'm putting a big caveat on this.

2.1 Actually, mate, the discussions aren't irrelevant to this question. As we said, the written statute law is vague in many areas and the translation is worse to the point of being meaningless. My best guess is that the allowances would be counted as income but it's a grey area. I can't guess how a labour court would rule on this, given that the normal reason for having such 'allowances' is to get a tax break. On the other hand, Labour Courts have no link to Tax departments. Ha sip / ha sip. If pushed to make a call, I'd say that in the absence of specific guidance in the legislation, the labour courts would likely rule in your favour.

2.2 As above

Thanks.

1. Think you'll find that it was me who had heard from a Brit lawyer here that it is 50% which is why i was asking if anybody knew anything on this point.

2.1 Never said, mate, that the discussions were irrelevant, i just found it amusing - you want to come on the football page and see the cut and thrust there.

2.2 Fancy checking this out with one of those B&M lawyers you know?

Cheers.

[adjan jb]

Today (August 10) I got a letter saying that "my term of employment will ternimate on Sept. 30" (which is the last day of my current contract)

I've completed 5 one year contracts (as a lecturer in a Gvt university). Am I entitled to some compensation under section 118, paragraph 3 ?

Adjan JB

[adjan jb]

Today (August 10) I got a letter saying that "my term of employment will ternimate on Sept. 30" (which is the last day of my current contract)

I've completed 5 one year contracts (as a lecturer in a Gvt university). Am I entitled to some compensation under section 118, paragraph 3 ?

Adjan JB

Is there anybody out there ?

[adjan jb]

Today (August 10) I got a letter saying that "my term of employment will ternimate on Sept. 30" (which is the last day of my current contract)

I've completed 5 one year contracts (as a lecturer in a Gvt university). Am I entitled to some compensation under section 118, paragraph 3 ?

Adjan JB

Is there anybody out there ?

Please.

[adjan jb]

Today (August 10) I got a letter saying that "my term of employment will ternimate on Sept. 30" (which is the last day of my current contract)

I've completed 5 one year contracts (as a lecturer in a Gvt university). Am I entitled to some compensation under section 118, paragraph 3 ?

Adjan JB

Is there anybody out there ?

Please.

I'll be back tomorrow and put this post on top until a "knowledgeable person" answer my question.

Have a good weekend.

Thanks anyway.

[bendix]

Yes. Very much so.

Six months salary. Do NOT let them tell you otherwise. Cite the act to them and, if the resist, threaten legal action and reporting it to the Labour Court.

(or is it nine months - can't remember right now)

Edited August 10, 2007 by bendix

[adjan jb]

Yes. Very much so.

Six months salary. Do NOT let them tell you otherwise. Cite the act to them and, if the resist, threaten legal action and reporting it to the Labour Court.

(or is it nine months - can't remember right now)

Thanks for your reply.

Under section 118 paragraph 3, It's 180 days so 6 months.

Now what is the definition of salary ? Does it include the housing allowance (or rent allowance or whatever the name) ?

[bendix]

I don't know. Like most Thai written legislation, the law is vague on that. It will be up to the discretion of the labour courts, if your case goes that far.