Introduction:

The concept of whistleblowing, while well-established in many countries, is relatively new in Thailand. Whistleblowing serves as a crucial tool for enhancing accountability and transparency within organizations. The protection of whistleblowers is essential to encourage employees to expose unethical behavior, corruption, and labor law violations without fear of retaliation. This article examines the current state of whistleblower protection in Thailand’s labor law context.

Legal Framework:

Absence of Specific Legislation

Thailand currently lacks specific legislation dedicated to protecting whistleblowers. The term “whistleblower” itself is not formally defined in Thai law. However, existing laws provide some degree of protection for employees reporting unethical practices as follows:

1. Protection from Thai Labor Legislations

In Thailand, there is currently no legislation specifically protecting whistle-blowers, nor is the term formally defined in Thai law. However, the Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975) (“Labor Relations Act”) provides some level of protection for employees who report unethical practices. The objective is to protect employees so that they receive protection and can exercise their various labor rights without interference, pressure, or coercion from others, whether from their employers or other organizations. The Labor Relations Act prohibits employers from terminating employees or taking actions that would prevent them from continuing their work due to protesting, filing complaints, serving as witnesses in labor law matters, or being a member of the labor union. These provisions can be interpreted as protective measures for whistle-blowers, imposing penalties of imprisonment and fines on employers who retaliate against them.

In addition to the Labor Relations Act, there are also provisions related to whistleblower protection in the Labor Court Establishment and Labor Litigation Procedure Act B.E. 2522 (1979) which allows the labor court to order an employer to reinstate an employee at the wage rate received at termination if it finds the termination unfair. If the employer cannot continue working, the court will assess the damages, considering the employee’s age, employment length, hardships, grounds for termination, and any compensation the employee is entitled to.

2. Awareness Among Organizations

Organizations in Thailand, such as the Stock Exchange, have recognized the importance of protecting employees. They utilize whistleblowing as a tool to gather complaints regarding violations of laws, regulations, or ethical standards, which can damage the organization’s reputation and assets.

The amendment to the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) has introduced additional sections related to whistleblower protection. This amendment prohibits companies from engaging in any unfair practices against employees, workers, or other individuals hired by the company who assist the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Capital Market Supervisory Board, or the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission in investigating wrongdoing. Violations of these provisions may result in criminal penalties, including fines for the listed companies and imprisonment for directors of such listed companies.

3. Legal Framework for Disputes

As mentioned above, when there is a labor-related offense or unfair acts between employers and employees, it will fall under the jurisdiction of the labor court. If there is a crime in other cases involved, for example, if employee A is sexually harassed by the manager and employee B reports the offense to management, employee B will act as a whistleblower and have the right to receive protection under the Labor Relations Act and the Labor Court Establishment and Labor Litigation Procedure Act B.E. 2522 (1979).

4. Judicial Precedents

Currently, no precedent judgment is directly related to whistleblowing cases. However, there is a judicial precedent reflecting the protection of employees from unfair dismissal resulting from their action against the employer to request compliance with their rights as employees.

Under the Precedent Supreme Court No. 3451-3452/2549, around 200 employees protested their management, requesting that their employment conditions regarding bonus payment be amended. The protest began at 7 a.m. and ended at 7.15 a.m., with the employer’s management team declaring to alter the employment conditions and refrain from pursuing any disciplinary action against those employees. Later, the employer filed a case to dismiss these employees.

The Supreme Court ruled that when an employer expressed a desire not to pursue any disciplinary action against employees, the employer was not entitled to terminate the employees.

According to the precedent case given, protesting to obtain a change in employment conditions is comparable with the whistleblower filing a labor rights complaint. The court will rule following the Labor Relations Act, which safeguards employees’ actions based on their rights.

Conclusion:

Although, Thailand lacks specific legislation for whistleblower protection, existing labor laws provide a framework that can be interpreted to safeguard employees who act as whistleblowers. The Labor Relations Act and the Labor Court Establishment and Labor Litigation Procedure Act offer mechanisms to protect employees from unjust termination and other retaliatory actions.

As awareness of the importance of whistleblower protection grows among organizations and regulatory bodies, it is likely that more robust protections will evolve within Thailand’s labor system. However, there remains a need for comprehensive legislation specifically addressing whistleblower protection to ensure that employees can report misconduct without fear of reprisal.