Thai labor law for teachers with contracts?

[inThailand]

Falangs have zero rights and falang teachers even less

[ozmeldo]

So obvious you're playing a weak hand. They let you go, you are not a good teacher. We can assume this bc they did not provide a reason. So, in this politeness and to avoid confrontation, nothing said.

 

First thing in your mind is not, turn the page, fresh start, more money, good riddance. It's crying you lost a job and how to file suit against a foreign government lol.

 

Contract is done, you're done. Man up and move on. Four years teaching, if you are any good that's 50k in bkk.

 

Never will you get damages. Contact me if you'd like to wager in it, I could take the wife out for steak for Valentine's day.

Edited February 11, 2018 by ozmeldo

[DavisH]

12 hours ago, pearciderman said:

 

Show me that! I would love to see that written in Thai in black and white!

You would get severance in a private school if you were fired mid-contract without good reasons and warning (multiple warning letters, etc). However, you could have worked 10 years in a school, and they decide not to renew your contract. Tough luck. No severance. I'm aware of the document Scott is referring to. There is an exclusion for teaching staff at private schools. 

[pearciderman]

2 hours ago, DavisH said:

You would get severance in a private school if you were fired mid-contract without good reasons and warning (multiple warning letters, etc). However, you could have worked 10 years in a school, and they decide not to renew your contract. Tough luck. No severance. I'm aware of the document Scott is referring to. There is an exclusion for teaching staff at private schools. 

Not strictly true, they are liable, but under a different set of rules;

 

Part 6 Working Protection Section 86.17

The affairs of a Formal School only on the part of the Director, teachers and educational personnel shall not be subject to the law on labor protection, the law on labor relations, the law on social security and the law on compensation. However, the Director, teachers and educational personnel of a Formal School shall receive remunerations not less than those prescribed in the law on labor protection.

Working protection, the adoption of Working Protection Committee and the minimum remunerations of the Director, teachers and educational personnel of the Formal Schools shall be in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Commission.

 

[The Hood]

On 10/02/2018 at 5:53 AM, Scott said:

A lot of cases go to the MoE, although I have never been involved in one where gross misconduct is involved.  

 

With the issue of test scores, it usually, but not always, involves allegations of cheating or favoritism toward some students to the disadvantage of others.   How serious that type of charge is depends on a whole lot of factors, including the attitude of the school toward cheating.  

 

Unhappy parents can hold amazing sway over a school.  

 

 

Actually, gross misconduct it was not. The point was it was grossly unfair dismissal.

 

The test scores, I understand, came to the attention of a parent group and the said teacher was scapegoated, for pretty abysmal results, despite having a solid record in every other class they were teaching. Nothing related to students cheating.

[The Hood]

I would like to ask your views on the proverbial question of visa delays by some institutions, to try to get to the bottom of any unethical practises that, allegedly, go on behind closed doors.

 

It seems to me that obtaining work permits for a group of staff, involves costs, the WP, insurance, among other things, and not to mention the administration. I'm curious why some institutions seem to be happy to let teachers work on tourist visas, at times with a minimum of support to get off them, and multiple renewals of the tourist visa. I refer not to the state school, system btw.

 

I know of a situation where several employees who will not be renewing their contract, but have not said so much, are still waiting the final stages of the WP with barely a month until the end of term.

 

A good friend of mine informs me that many institutions are in the pocket of Immigration. This is hearsay and I don't quite understand the logic. However, if one imagines an institution who want to cut costs and are prepared to do so at the expense of their employees security (no bank account without a WP) and their sense of feeling settled in a new country, then it just may make sense that some of the stories i've encountered where companies let the visa situation run and run... are grounded in something. 

 

Such a place that secretly harbours questionable ethics towards employees when it comes to finance certainly would go as far as to hold an employee "in limbo" if they had reason to extend probation, for example... what would be in it for them to invest in a WP, if they were going to let the employee go?

 

The flip side to this, and there always is one, is things like extended probation, could be used unfairly, as it too would likely save the company a minimum of 5,000 Baht per employee (the going step-down in difference). So the two scenarios together.... employee on a tourist visa... fair/unfair extended probation... plays into the saving of money. I am no economist but my question is would that be a significant amount?

 

 

 

 

[Scott]

A fair number of schools do not have a good idea of how to go about the visa/work permit process.   I assisted with a number of schools, in several different provinces.   Each province had a slightly different take on the regulations and this caused unnecessary delays.  

 

When the visa person would be changed, the learning curve was slow and regulations were usually more strictly enforced.   Once the visa person established a relationship with the agencies, things moved along more smoothly. 

 

We employed a lot of foreign teachers, so we could dedicate a person to the process.   Smaller schools just didn't do it.   With some of the people from smaller schools, they sometimes just did it themselves and the school paid.  

 

We did not extend the probation during the process.   Probation was 3 months and once that was up, the teacher was either off probation or released.  

[puchooay]

22 hours ago, The Hood said:

I would like to ask your views on the proverbial question of visa delays by some institutions, to try to get to the bottom of any unethical practises that, allegedly, go on behind closed doors.

 

It seems to me that obtaining work permits for a group of staff, involves costs, the WP, insurance, among other things, and not to mention the administration. I'm curious why some institutions seem to be happy to let teachers work on tourist visas, at times with a minimum of support to get off them, and multiple renewals of the tourist visa. I refer not to the state school, system btw.

 

I know of a situation where several employees who will not be renewing their contract, but have not said so much, are still waiting the final stages of the WP with barely a month until the end of term.

 

A good friend of mine informs me that many institutions are in the pocket of Immigration. This is hearsay and I don't quite understand the logic. However, if one imagines an institution who want to cut costs and are prepared to do so at the expense of their employees security (no bank account without a WP) and their sense of feeling settled in a new country, then it just may make sense that some of the stories i've encountered where companies let the visa situation run and run... are grounded in something. 

 

Such a place that secretly harbours questionable ethics towards employees when it comes to finance certainly would go as far as to hold an employee "in limbo" if they had reason to extend probation, for example... what would be in it for them to invest in a WP, if they were going to let the employee go?

 

The flip side to this, and there always is one, is things like extended probation, could be used unfairly, as it too would likely save the company a minimum of 5,000 Baht per employee (the going step-down in difference). So the two scenarios together.... employee on a tourist visa... fair/unfair extended probation... plays into the saving of money. I am no economist but my question is would that be a significant amount?

 

 

 

 

Why do you think you cannot have a bank account without a work permit? 

[The Hood]

8 hours ago, puchooay said:

Why do you think you cannot have a bank account without a work permit? 

Please enlighten me. I was under the impression that was the only way to obtain one.

[pearciderman]

8 hours ago, The Hood said:

Please enlighten me. I was under the impression that was the only way to obtain one.

 

Your visa/extension/work permit has no legal bearing on getting a bank account.

 

Every branch sets their own rules.

 

But really, if having a work permit was the only way............how would the thousands of retirees have bank accounts?

[jenny2017]

OP, please see attached files in Thai. 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by jenny2017

[MrPatrickThai]

On 2/12/2018 at 4:13 AM, inThailand said:

Falangs have zero rights and falang teachers even less

Absolute lie.

[MrPatrickThai]

On 2/11/2018 at 9:44 AM, Scott said:

I am not sure exactly how the determination is made by the MoL.   The cases that we had that went to the MoE were sent there by the Labor ministry.  

There's obviously someone at your school that has influence in the MoL or/and the MoE.

Have you worked at the same school for 20 years?

 

This is NOT the normal process by the MoL. Most schools will pay just upon being threatened with legal action and having a copy of the Labour Law thrown at them. 

 

Although no longer a teacher, I worked as one for 25 years here and have many friends in the business.

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by MrPatrickThai

[Scott]

1 minute ago, MrPatrickThai said:

There's obviously someone at your school that has influence in the MoL.

Have yo worked at the same school for 20 years?

 

No, no one has any influence with either the MOL.   If they had, then I certainly would not have been requested to attend.  

 

I was tangentially involved in two disputes with the MOL that the school lost.   One of them they lost big time and the other significantly.  So no influence by the school over the Labor department.  

 

[MrPatrickThai]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

No, no one has any influence with either the MOL.   If they had, then I certainly would not have been requested to attend.  

 

I was tangentially involved in two disputes with the MOL that the school lost.   One of them they lost big time and the other significantly.  So no influence by the school over the Labor department.  

 

OK, thanks for clarifying. Seems rather strange involving the MoE. Was this for a teacher claiming severance? 

[MrPatrickThai]

On 2/24/2018 at 2:03 PM, puchooay said:

Why do you think you cannot have a bank account without a work permit? 

If you have a "yellow house book" or Pink Alien Card you can open one. No need for a WP.

[Scott]

No.   He was claiming money that was withheld during the probationary period.   There are specific requirements for the money to be returned and he did not meet them.  

 

The overriding issue was the wording of the contract, which sets one salary for the probationary period and then it is increased after the probationary period.  

 

Employees completing the current contract and giving 30 days notice are eligible to get a bonus that is equivalent to the difference between the two salaries.   The employee in question completed the contract, started a new one and then left without notice.   The MoE ruled he was not entitled to the money.  

 

 

[MrPatrickThai]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

No.   He was claiming money that was withheld during the probationary period.   There are specific requirements for the money to be returned and he did not meet them.  

 

The overriding issue was the wording of the contract, which sets one salary for the probationary period and then it is increased after the probationary period.  

 

Employees completing the current contract and giving 30 days notice are eligible to get a bonus that is equivalent to the difference between the two salaries.   The employee in question completed the contract, started a new one and then left without notice.   The MoE ruled he was not entitled to the money.  

 

 

Firstly, withholding any money is against the law. I know schools that keep some teachers' money until they come back the next year!!

Leaving without notice is obviously breaking the contract, why did he even tried for severance?

The cases I know of personally are when the teacher had been working for some years and the contract was not renewed. The teachers had not received written warnings and had not committed any serious offences. 

 

 

 

[Scott]

There was no money withheld.  

 

The probationary salary is less than the regular salary.   Just like a raise in pay.   When you get a pay raise, you can't claim you should get that retroactively to the beginning of your employment.  

 

Once the contract is finished, neither party is under any obligation to renew it.  

 

 

[puchooay]

43 minutes ago, MrPatrickThai said:

If you have a "yellow house book" or Pink Alien Card you can open one. No need for a WP.

You don't even need that. I opend an acvount with Kasikorn with just a passport. 

[MrPatrickThai]

1 hour ago, puchooay said:

You don't even need that. I opend an acvount with Kasikorn with just a passport. 

So have I in the past, and other banks.

 

Just saying, with a Pink Non-Thai ID card, you can open an account with any bank.

[MrPatrickThai]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

There was no money withheld.  

 

The probationary salary is less than the regular salary.   Just like a raise in pay.   When you get a pay raise, you can't claim you should get that retroactively to the beginning of your employment.  

 

Once the contract is finished, neither party is under any obligation to renew it.  

 

 

Ah, OK, I read it wrongly.  Do you mean that there was a bonus, if he met certain requirements? What money was being returned? 

 

[Scott]

Well, that is the questionable part and the reason that it is contentious and causes problems.   Quite a few years back, the difference was given to the employee at the end of the probation period.   This was changed and it was next given at the end of the first contract.   This was eventually changed to it was not given at all until the person left the school.

 

This isn't the exact amounts but, if the agreed salary was 35,000 baht per month, the salary during probation was 33,000 baht per month.   Probation is 3 months, so the difference in pay was 6,000 baht. 

 

Teachers who had worked for many years had received the 6,000 baht at the end of the 3 months.   Others had received it at the end of the first contract.   For the past 10 years or so, it was not given back until the teacher made their final exit from the school.  

 

If the employee left in the middle of a contract, it was not returned.   Some teachers felt it was due to them even if they left without completing the current contract.   Most teachers viewed it as a deduction, rather than a difference in the two salaries.  

 

An employee went to the MoL on the issue.   He had completed his contract, had started a new contractual year, but had not signed a new contract.   The school had been remiss in getting the new contracts to the teachers in a timely fashion, so he, along with all the teachers, were working without a contract for the first couple of weeks of the new academic year.   The employee left without giving notice, but since he had completed his last contract, he felt he should get the money.

 

The MoL decided it was an issue that should be dealt with by the education office.   Why I don't know, but that who was assigned to deal with it.   Maybe it was because the amount was less than 10,000 baht (or some amount), or perhaps it didn't fall within some other regulation.

 

In short, the Education office ruled in favor of the school because the employee left during the academic year without giving notice.  

[The Hood]

Re probation: if a contract states the employer reserves the right to cancel employment immediately after the initial probation period, surely that could not be construed as anything other than at the END of probation? It's clumsy wording "immediately after" is it not? Would that be viewed as a clearly defined clause, meaning at the end of probation, or could the employer argue it's written thus to give them further time to change their mind, even though a full contract has been granted? I'm pretty sure in the UK and elsewhere that would have to mean end of probation...means end of probation...period.