In the bustling world of offshore technical work, a seasoned technician found himself at the center of a legal battle that would test the boundaries of labor law and contractual agreements. This is the story of how a seemingly straightforward dismissal turned into a landmark case, shedding light on the intricacies of employment law.

The Beginning:

In 1999, the technician, referred to as the plaintiff, was hired by the defendant company. Over the years, he rose to the position of a technical supervisor, working both onshore and offshore. His work schedule was rigorous: 28 days on duty followed by 14 days of rest, with wages paid on the 25th of each month.

The Dismissal:

In 2019, the company issued a termination letter to the plaintiff, effective 1 December 2019. The plaintiff, aware of the impending dismissal, signed the letter, acknowledging the termination and agreeing to accept the compensation offered by the company. He also waived any further claims against the company.

The Dispute:

Despite the agreement, the plaintiff later filed a lawsuit, claiming additional compensation. He argued that the offshore bonus, which he received for working at sea, should be included in the calculation of his severance pay and notice pay. The company, however, contended that the agreement was a fair settlement and that the plaintiff had no further claims.

The Court of First Instance’s Findings:

The labor court of Thailand found that the plaintiff had willingly signed the termination agreement, fully aware of his dismissal and the compensation offered. The court noted that the plaintiff, with his extensive experience and knowledge, was not coerced into signing the agreement. The company had faced financial difficulties, leading to the dismissal of over 100 employees in similar positions.

The court ruled that the offshore bonus was indeed part of the plaintiff’s wages and should be included in the severance and notice pay calculations. However, the agreement signed by the plaintiff was deemed a valid compromise, binding both parties. As a result, the plaintiff had no further claims against the company.

The Appeal Court Decision:

The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the agreement was unfair and that the company had taken advantage of him. The specialized court of appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, stating that the agreement was a lawful compromise and did not violate public order or morality. The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court’s Decision:

The supreme court (3805/2566) was tasked with determining whether the termination agreement was enforceable regarding the severance and notice pay. The court concluded that the plaintiff had signed the agreement voluntarily, with full knowledge of his rights and the compensation offered. The agreement was a legitimate compromise, and the plaintiff was bound by its terms. Consequently, the plaintiff had no further claims for additional compensation.

Key Takeaways:

1. Voluntary Agreements: Employees who voluntarily sign termination agreements, fully aware of their rights and the compensation offered, are generally bound by those agreements.
2. Inclusion of Bonuses: Bonuses, such as offshore bonuses, are considered part of wages and should be included in severance and notice pay calculations.
3. Legal Compromises: Compromise agreements between employers and employees are enforceable if they do not violate public order or morality.
4. Financial Difficulties: Companies facing financial difficulties may lawfully reduce their workforce, provided the dismissals are not discriminatory or unfair.

This case highlights the importance of understanding one’s rights and the implications of signing legal agreements. It serves as a reminder that fair and transparent negotiations are crucial in resolving employment disputes.