Thailand: Mandatory vaccination - What employers should know

In brief

We have seen a general easing of restrictions surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic in many places around the world, including Thailand, and employers have started to call employees to return to the office. However, as public health measures and policies vary from place to place, it is important for employers to be cautious when it comes to workplace policies in response to returning to work and employers' health and safety obligations. Employers still have a legal duty to ensure a safe and clean work environment which presents minimal risks in employees contracting COVID-19 in the office. One of the measures many employers have adopted or are likely to consider is to require employees to be fully vaccinated.


Contents

The effectiveness of vaccination against COVID-19 has increasingly become more apparent when compared to other measures as echoed in the World Health Organization's (WHO) statement issued on 17 May 2022, "Vaccination has been shown to contribute to reducing deaths and severe illness from COVID-19". The question here is whether mandatory vaccination is legally valid and enforceable.

In Thailand, there are no cases or rulings that would suggest vaccine mandates are legal in a country where vaccination is still voluntary. This context poses a question of whether an employer can order their employees to be fully vaccinated and to what extent. Can the employer regard this order as lawful and fair so that their employees must strictly comply with it? Without defined laws and government policies to provide clarity on this issue, whether the requirement by employers for employees to be vaccinated is lawful and fair will likely depend on a number of factors. 

Recently, there have been interesting cases on the points above in other countries. Australia's Fair Work Commission ruled in the case of a vaccine mandate implemented by a private sector employer in the mining industry which stated that this mandate would be legally enforceable, given consultation requirements are met in accordance with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW). The Commission acknowledged that the employer faced a difficult situation given that the workers are unable to work from home and, by nature of the work, come into close contact with other workers at work. Interestingly, the relevant parties have accepted the following facts which led to the Commission's decision:

i. 

 

All COVID-19 vaccines currently available in Australia are effective at preventing symptomatic infection.

ii.

 

All COVID-19 vaccines substantially reduce the risk of serious illness or death.

iii.

 

All COVID-19 vaccines are safe and any adverse effects are usually mild. There is a much higher risk of developing serious complications and dying from acquiring COVID-19.

iv.

 

While other measures such as mask wearing and social distancing are demonstrated to reduce the transmission of COVID-19, the effectiveness of these measures depends on people applying them consistently or correctly. They do not provide a substitute for the constant protection offered by vaccines, nor do they reduce the risk of developing serious illness once somebody acquired an infection.

v.

 

Even with high vaccination rates in the community, COVID-19 will remain a significant hazard in any workplace in which people interact or use common spaces.

For Thailand, current law and government policies are silent on mandatory vaccination and there has not been any court rulings providing any insights to date. In this context, the aforementioned Australian ruling is useful for Thai employers because it highlights key rationales of what make the employer's order for mandatory vaccination fair and justified. These rationales could serve as references and considerations for Thai employers when considering implementing mandatory vaccination in the workplace. While caution should be taken since it is an Australian ruling decided under Australian law and Thai courts do not follow rulings of foreign courts, the facts underpinning the Commission's decision provide insights into the fundamental ideas of what could make mandatory vaccination justifiable and, in this context, relevant. However, as mentioned earlier, circumstances vary from one employer to the next due to the nature of the industry or type of work, and therefore not all employees will be working closely with one another unlike the Australian case which made social distancing impossible. Some employees may also have justifiable reasons for not getting vaccinated, e.g., religions or health reasons. Having said that, the facts from the Australian ruling could provide key defenses for Thai employers in similar circumstances.

Ultimately, it is important that employers exercise caution when implementing the rules of returning to work, particularly in regards to mandatory vaccination. Employers will also need to be mindful of discrimination risks in relation to any vaccination policy or data privacy when collecting vaccination status, particularly as Thailand's Personal Data Protection Act is coming into effect in June 2022. If appropriate, employers may consider alternative measures to mandatory vaccination which may still help ensure the health and safety of the workplace, such as requiring all employees to take and submit weekly negative Antigen Test Kit results to the employer before entering the workplace.


Copyright © 2024 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.