Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In this case, the employee worked as a ground maintenance technician. He signed an airworthiness certification at a time when his licence had expired and had not been renewed. Other employees had engaged in the same practice, yet none of them were subjected to disciplinary proceedings. However, this particular employee was investigated by a disciplinary committee and ultimately dismissed from employment. The evidence showed that, prior to the dismissal, the employee had submitted written complaints to the relevant authorities seeking fair treatment from his employer.The Supreme Court held that the employer had treated the employee differently from other employees whose conduct was not materially different. Such selective disciplinary action constituted unequal and discriminatory treatment and did not provide sufficient justification for dismissal. Accordingly, the employer lacked reasonable grounds for terminating the employee's employment, and the dismissal was therefore unfair.This judgment establishes an important principle of Thai labour law: an employer must exercise its disciplinary discretion fairly, consistently, and without discrimination. Employees who engage in substantially similar conduct should be treated equally. Where an employer selectively disciplines or dismisses a particular employee without a legitimate and objective justification, especially in circumstances suggesting retaliation for the employee's exercise of lawful rights, such dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal, and the employee is entitled to the protection afforded under Thai labour law.

Interesting Article
The employer's work regulations provided that employees could be assigned to three work shifts. In practice, however, the employer had consistently operated a two-shift system, under which employees were regularly able to work overtime and earn additional income.Subsequently, 181 employees submitted labour demands to the company. The employer persuaded some employees to withdraw their names from the petition and thereafter assigned only the 35 employees who continued to support the demands to the three-shift system, while the remaining employees continued working under the existing two-shift arrangement.As a result of the change, the affected employees suffered reductions in income and employment benefits because they were no longer able to perform overtime work. The alteration significantly affected both their working conditions and their daily lives. Although the employer argued that the reassignment was within its managerial authority under the company's work regulations, the Court found that assigning only those employees who had exercised their labour rights to a different shift system demonstrated an intention to discriminate against and pressure them.The Supreme Court therefore held that the employer's conduct constituted an unfair labour practice under Section 121(1) of the Labour Relations Act B.E. 2518. The Court further ruled that the order of the Labour Relations Committee, directing the employer to restore the affected employees to their previous work shift arrangement, was lawful and valid.