Thread: Legality

I am not very good with Thai laws so I am posting this to get your expert opinion on the matter, William.

A friend of mine has been working with a Thai company for a while. He's having some issues with the management as of late and is planning to sue them for retaining 50% of his first month salary (refundable on completion as stipulated in the contract).

Can he go to the court of law on the above mentioned basis given that he signed a contract with them which clearly stipulates that 50% of his first month salary will be kept as security deposit and shall be refunded once he completes his contract?

Thanks in advance.

Have I understood the question.

He wants to sue the company because they have complied with the contract ?

A couple of pertinent questions.

Who wrote the contract?

Who signed the contract?

What is the length of the contract?

Originally Posted by Thetyim

Have I understood the question. He wants to sue the company because they have complied with the contract ?

I think he's enquiring about the legality of the actual clause itself?

Assuming the contract was signed by your friend and the contract was still in force, I would bet he wouldn't have any legal grounds to sue. It is not an uncommon practice to withhold some % of payment until the contract is completed.

50% of one month,.... gonna cost more than that to sue !

If the contract is governed by Thai law, he would be wasting his time going to a court of law.

Best bet would be to go to the Labor Dept and see if they can help him work this one out.

I would ask Macca - do you just happen to know the stupidest people around, or do they just collect to you? Who in their right mind would sign a contract with such a clause?

~W~

^ its wasnt Macha's fault, he didnt read it first thats all!

^Gerbil - in most cases I know, Thai employees are required to pay an upfront bond. Not a % of their first month salary.

That said, % of first month salary is a clause I have seen with TELFers, but not 50%.

Originally Posted by William

If the contract is governed by Thai law, he would be wasting his time going to a court of law.

Best bet would be to go to the Labor Dept and see if they can help him work this one out.

I would ask Macca - do you just happen to know the stupidest people around, or do they just collect to you? Who in their right mind would sign a contract with such a clause?

~W~

Actually, the guy is a complete nutter. He asked my opinion on the matter and I told him striaght away that he doesn't stand a chance of winning as he ain't got no work permit but he insisted that I should ask me company's lawyer.

I did approach the legal section but the guy's on leave. I thought it's best to ask you.

*He's an LLB from one of internationally reputable universities!*

Perhaps maybe he thinks that his degree in law would scare the shit out of company. IMO he's all mouth and no trousers. I couldn't say no to him cos as you all know that I am a gentleman.

Ah my bad. It isn't a 50% deposit actually. They're paying him one period behind. At the end of first month the company paid him only 50% of his salary. The following month, up until now, he's being paid fortnightly.

So technically speaking it ain't a 50% deposit case rather being paid a period behind.

^^Actually mate, that's one of the biggest misconceptions in Thai law. The Ministry of Labor have nothing to do with your immigration status. Whether you work legally or illegally, the Ministry of Labor will help you, if you have the law on your side.

The problem is, you may incriminate yourself with the Immigration Department.

But, they're two separate issues. Hence the reason the Ministry of Labor sued an employer in Thailand for not paying illegal Burmese workers. The fact they were illegal didn't both the Ministry of Labor - that was a separate issue of the Immigration Dept., who soon after departed them. The legal issue on employment, however, was well covered by the Labor Dept.

So Will do you know what's the Thai law regarding paying employees a period behind?

The whole bond issue is difficult mate. Labor Law does allow for this. But it does depend on a number of issues - including the amount.

Sorry, my best advice is that he phone the Labor Dept and see what the say. If he doesn't like it, then talk to a lawyer. But in the first case, talk to them.

Originally Posted by William

The whole bond issue is difficult mate. Labor Law does allow for this. But it does depend on a number of issues - including the amount.

Sorry, my best advice is that he phone the Labor Dept and see what the say. If he doesn't like it, then talk to a lawyer. But in the first case, talk to them.

I'll tell him to speak to the Labour department.

Thanks very much for the advice Will.