Section 575 is a labor contract, which is referred to as the employee agrees to work for another person. The employer. And the employer agrees to pay all the time at work.
Section 576 if the circumstances could not be expected that it will make it a gem. He would equate to an implied promise to pay.
Section 577 allows employers to transfer their rights to third parties on employee compliance with
Employees to third parties or their representatives to work on employer compliance with
If any party violates the provisions of this Other party may terminate the contract time.
Section 578 if the employee expressly or implicitly endorsed by the expression that he is a special skill. If it appears that the unskilled, the gem. Employers like to tell you that it has terminated the contract.
Section 579 of the employee's absence from work without reasonable cause, and that a reasonable period of time. That does not make the employer has the right to terminate the agreement.
Section 580 is not required by contract or custom to be paid remuneration when You may not be paid when the work has been completed. If the payment of remuneration is set aside for a period not to be paid at the time that all the time.
Section 581 if the duration of the agreement between the employer and the employee continues to work down further. And employers know they are not upset so soon. You shall be presumed that the parties entered into new employment contracts with the same old However, either party may terminate the contract by notice in accordance with the provisions of the following.
Section 582 If the parties do not set down in the contract that will pay well for it. That any party to terminate the contract by notice on or before the payment to pay at any one time. The contract is scheduled to pay when the next time it could be done ahead. I do not need more than three months notice.
In addition, when a notice like this. The employer pays the employee to pay the full amount to be paid until the time of termination, pursuant to notice it. To immediately release the employee from work may be done.
Section 583 If an employer's willful disobedience of a lawful good. Or negligent disregard of such orders is always good. Abandon the work going to waste it. Serious offense better. Or do otherwise is not worthy to perform their duties properly and in good faith to accomplish by it. You will be fired by their employers are required to give notice or any claims.
Section 584 if the employment of any material is the person who is the employer. That such contract shall terminate with the death of the employer.
Section 585 on the hiring end down. Employees prefer to receive warrants that such employee has worked for the farm and how to do it.
Section 586 if the employee is hired, the employer has taken out a foreign employer-paid trip to remember. When employers terminate If you do not specify otherwise in the contract. He said employers must use the money to go back. It must be the following.
(1) the contract is not terminated or suspended because of the act or fault of the employee and
(2) the employee was hired to take place within a reasonable time.
Supreme Court in 4970/2552.
Its main purpose is accused of engaging a consultant to design and construction of gas pipelines, the defendant hired a consulting engineer in the design of gas pipeline companies. The defendant hired the plaintiff and defendant to work as an engineer in the program of the Company. defendant to pay compensation to the plaintiff to the Company. the plaintiff continued. As compensation under the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for Period of normal operation of the plaintiff as the wages. The plaintiff must follow the command and supervision of the Company. It is a case where the accused person shall have their part to the Company. Representing the defendant while the plaintiff to the defendant's statement to the task. Done according to the contract between the defendant company. When completed, the new design. A letter to the defendant that the plaintiff's termination. As the Company. The plaintiff returned to the defendant. The power to dismiss the plaintiff remains a defendant. The defendant has no power to supervise the plaintiff did not in any way. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant.
Supreme Court in 7717/2551.
If the employer fails to pay the compensation. Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 118, paragraph three, the agreement between the employer and the employee must be in accordance with Article 118, paragraph four, that this is a non-exclusive contract in the ordinary course of business or trade. Employers must have at the beginning and end of the course. Or in an occasional appearance at the scheduled termination or completion of the work or the work is seasonal and is employed at the time of the season. This work will be completed in less than two years. By employers and employees into a written agreement since the start of employment.
Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 5 means that the employer pay compensation to the employee upon termination of employment. In addition to other monies which the employer agrees to pay to the employee. The defendant paid the plaintiff before the expiration of a period of 12 months under the contract are not compensated.
Contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was a contract for a period of employment. Of course, during the period April 14, 2543 until April 13, 2544, but at the end of such period on April 13, 2544 the defendant did not terminate the employment of the plaintiff. Plaintiff continued to work. It also would pay the plaintiff. Must be made by the new contract similar to the original agreement under Section 581 a contract for an indefinite period of employment together. Thus, when the plaintiff accused the defendant to dismissal of the plaintiff's notice. On or before the payment of wages at any one time. To make a termination payment of wages when due next time.
Supreme Court in 7699/2551.
Plaintiffs have rules about how to comply with the province is working day and any day may not come to work must do. Failure to comply will result. This is the power to supervise the operations of the province by province so I can work independently to achieve a successful outcome of the work only. The agreement requires the plaintiff to pay a monthly return on the province throughout the province to work for the plaintiff. The overtime pay. Overtime on the weekend. The work on the weekend. The remuneration paid to the District Court for the success of the work will be done by contract, not the subject of such contracts is to determine whether the addition. Previous driving under the contract with the province to work as assigned by the plaintiff. It can be seen as the remuneration of work is not only to the completion of the work done. The driver only. But as time worked for wages, whether any duty is payable on a monthly basis, so the contract between the plaintiff has a contract with the District labor contract is not made of the plaintiff's appeal.
Supreme Court in 6098/2551.
Central Labour Court ruled that the facts and listen. The plaintiff as a manager for a car to get the car repaired to the dispute department control. Plaintiff has the duty to submit documents related to the agency, the employer of the defendant to file a claim with the insurer for the spare parts within a reasonable time. But the plaintiff did not commit. The plaintiff's failure to perform duties as instructed by the employer's unlawful acts and to perform their duties can not be done to accurately and honestly. The defendant, who is the employer has the right to terminate plaintiff's employment without notice under Section 583, which is diagnosed according to the defense of the accused.
To determine whether the dismissal unfair. Establishment of Labour Court Act, Section 49, the court must consider the true cause of the dismissal the employer has a reasonable excuse or not. The cause of dismissal may not be the case based on testimony of the defendant or as specified in the letter of termination as set forth in Section 17 paragraph three of the Labour Protection Act and it's a different case with. The termination notice shall not. The Court has jurisdiction over the cause of termination and dismissal of the plaintiff that the defendant, and Why is fair or not. The Court announced that the Central Labor put forward a regulation on the operation of the department to repair the document, the District 3 and the notice of the change in the performance of the department's decision to fix the meaning of the District 4 Plaintiffs attest to that. Thus, the defendant terminated the plaintiff as a result of the defendants are not satisfied that the defendant asked the plaintiff to the normal working hours. Plaintiffs contend, however, objected, and filed complaints to labor inspectors and that is why she can not change the working hours of the plaintiff. Not be dismissed because of plaintiff's fault or negligence of duty by the defendant to the battle. The decision of the Central Labour Court with the law.
Supreme Court in 4203/2551.
The plaintiff pointed to the sharp limits of the car parked in the parking lot of Sun employees have been damaged. The action of the plaintiff, thus damaging the property of another person in the defendant company. According to the regulations concerning the defendant is a serious offense to the termination of employment. When considering the regulations and it was clear that the defendant intended to prevent the destruction of property belonging to the defendant but also to others in the defendant's assets are protected as the property of the defendant as well. If they are able to destroy property in the defendant. Other employees of the defendant would not normally have worked. Especially in the parking lot where the defendant's employees to park their cars. May not care as long as it works to the defendant. Should be taken care of by the defendant as the defendant has installed CCTV cameras to check for evidence if a crime has occurred. Considering the wealth that made the car an asset whose price and the employee is required to get work done at the parking area of the defendant. And the use of a sharp knife is an act of others who do not pay attention to the suffering of others. Should not be doing it. Circumstances of the plaintiff's action is indeed regarded as a serious offense in itself. Defendants are dismissed without notice by the plaintiff's Section 583 do not have to pay accordingly. Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 119 (4), and not a dismissal as unfair.
Supreme Court in 2035/2551.
When the plaintiff that the defendant has ordered the record company, Sun executives in business management at the company, which is a command serves to regulate the practice of law by not complying. The plaintiff was a deliberate act of disobedience of lawful employment. The employer will need to stay fired without notice or any claims under Section 583 and the Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 17, paragraph five, the plaintiff is not entitled to pay instead. notice.
Supreme Court in 1605/2551.
Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 13 for the case of changes to the employer that the employer is a party. Natural or juristic person. As a result, the employer must accept the rights and obligations relating to existing employees. With the same employer in all respects. If an employee is transferred to the new employer is required by Section 577 cases in which employers, employees and employers will be on compliance with And when employees consent to such assignment, the employee must. Compliance with the regulations or orders of the new employer as well, it appears that while the plaintiff to the defendant's first regulations on the retirement after 65 years of age or later, the defendant, a transfer plaintiff to the defendant to two regulations on the retirement at the age of 60 years of age and the defendant, the second transfer of the plaintiff to the defendant, the three defendants, three have rules about how his retirement after 60 years of age. The transfer of the plaintiff against a defendant to the defendant, 2 and 3 to comply with Section 577 will cause the retirement of the plaintiff's right to be declining. The transfer of the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff must comply with the new employer. The plaintiff does not claim full retirement at the age of 65 years of age in accordance with the defendant that a new employer. The third defendant terminated plaintiff's employment was not terminated by reason but harassment. Reasonable and adequate. Is not a dismissal unfair by. Act on Establishment of Labour Court and Labour Court Procedure, BE 2522, Section 49.
Supreme Court at 259 - 260/2551.
Employed as a waiter, food During the beer. Preserved as a mouse. It's time to stop just 5 minutes, the waiter did not have the potential to cause damage to the employer. The employee did not appear to have been drunk or causing any damage to the employer. The employer did not appear to have criticized the performance of the employee. If the employee does not violate any regulations regarding the operation of the employer. But to drink beer while on duty shall be considered willful disobedience of employers. The employer dismissed without notice at front of Section 583.
Supreme Court in 7398 - 7399/2551.
The State Enterprise Labor Relations Act. The definition of the word. "Enterprises" that specifically refers to (1) of the Government Organization Act to establish a government or business. State law establishing the entity. And shall include the business units owned by the Government (2) a corporation or partnership entity or public body that has the status of the department or state equivalent (1), the total cost by more than fifty percent. The Petroleum Authority of Thailand has been transformed into a Por on October 1, 2544 The company said it is a state enterprise under Section 6 (2) of the Act. It accused the company is owned by the ministries, departments or public bodies or enterprises that have equal status under Section 6 (a) not more than fifty percent. As a result, defendants are not state-owned enterprises and the subject. State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, the longer it will fall under the general provisions of labor law. The Events Company Ltd., which was established by the union. The State Enterprise Labor Relations Act. Would end up as a union state on October 1, 2544 by the plaintiff is not protected by Section 24 of the Act. In addition, the union has not been canceled because of the registrar there. Order to repeal Section 66.
Since January 2545 until December 2545 the plaintiff to be at work at 8:00 o'clock, which is normally a total of 35 defendants issued a notification dated January 21, 2546 was held on January 9, 2546 the plaintiff to show a modal blasphemy. cynical and vulgar talk disrespectful to the commander directly accused the notice dated February 7, 2546 signed between the two documents. Manager of the employee. Both of these books as being a warning to improve their behavior. And identify the perpetrators of the plaintiff as well. They have exactly the same. "So for you to edit and improve the conduct of an employee. And act in a proper regulatory and professional standards of the company has seized you by the letter of warning to improve the behavior of a reminder that if you violate the rules of corporate wrongdoing like that. We will consider the penalty in weight to "the show that from January 2546 to March 2546 plaintiffs continued to be a warning to the building work, and work from 8:00 o'clock total of 13 defendants have letter dated March 24, 2546 signed by the new. as well, but a repeat offender subject to a notice of warning. When the evidence of the plaintiff in such a state that. Violation repeated warnings. Stating that the company will consider disciplinary action in accordance with the proceeding shall have the punishment of the plaintiff by issuing a warning letter after the letter was 9 days, defendants issued a release the defendant from the staff, the notice of the action. The repeated warnings. It is not a written warning notice to the plaintiff that the defendant violated the plaintiff's breach of repeated warnings by the regulations governing the work and the employer has a written warning to the defendant was not required to pay compensation to the plaintiff. Labour Protection Act, Section 119 (4) the plaintiff's negligent disregard for the employer's lawful orders of the defendant as an employer can always be dismissed without notice or compensation at the side instead. Section 583 of the Labour Protection Act, Section 17, the circumstances of the work. Including violations of orders and regulations of the defendant have reason to. The defendant terminated plaintiff. It is not a dismissal unfair.
Supreme Court in 4203/2551.
The plaintiff pointed to the sharp limits of the car parked in the parking lot of Sun employees have been damaged. The action of the plaintiff, thus damaging the property of another person in the defendant company. According to the regulations concerning the defendant is a serious offense to the termination of employment. When considering the regulations and it was clear that the defendant intends to United. The destruction of property belonging to the defendant but also the wealth of individuals. Another defendant in the company are protected property of the defendant as well. If they are able to destroy property in the defendant. Other employees of the defendant would not normally have worked. Especially in the parking lot where the defendant's employees to park their cars. May not care as long as it works to the defendant. Should be taken care of by the defendant as the defendant will be seen that installation. CCTV to monitor for evidence if the offense occurred. Considering the wealth that made the car an asset whose price and Employees must use to get work done at the parking area of the defendant. And the use of a sharp knife is an act of others who do not pay attention to the. Suffering of others. Should not be doing it. Circumstances of the plaintiff's action constitutes a serious offense as the defendant in the plaintiff's dismissal would be without prior notice, according to Section 583 do not have to pay accordingly. Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 119 (4), and not a dismissal as unfair. Act on Establishment of Labour Court and Labour Court Procedure, BE 2522, Section 49, the plaintiffs appealed that Plaintiffs admit that the real offender and damages to Mr. Sun, Mr. Sun was not impressed with the plaintiff took it. The plaintiff has a good before. It should also be taken as a reprieve to allow the plaintiff to the defendant that the dismissal of the plaintiff's conduct to the requirements of the defendant, then the court will have discretion to determine the punishment of the defendant.
Supreme Court in 3198 - 3279/2551.
The defendant ordered the plaintiff to an eight to twelve. Which is employed in the province to work at the hospital, Paul London. Job. Of the defendant at one time licensed to serve food between the defendants 1 and accused 2, where the defendant an offer to the plaintiff, eight of twelve chosen to work in other branches of the defendant to an existing job. and Bangkok. The grants are for rent per month and 1,000 on the plaintiff and eighty-two, no and no intention by the defendant at a known fact that one there is a need to order the plaintiff and eighty-two to the hospital. Paul's Hospital. Job. In a position not lower. The plaintiff, eight of twelve notify the defendant that one does not wish to perform the work of another of defendant No. 1 and not to act by the defendant at a given, it is abandoning a three-day working. with no justification under the Labour Protection Act, Section 119 (5), and an abandonment of the work to which a defendant will be dismissed without notice or compensation are to be fried instead of P.p. Since Section 583 and hence dismissed the case it is necessary and appropriate. It is not a dismissal as unfair. Act on Establishment of Labour Court and Labour Court Procedure, Section 49 defendants a dismissal of the plaintiff and eighty two, without paying compensation. Pay in lieu of notice and damages for unfair dismissal.
Supreme Court in 2035/2551.
When the plaintiff that the defendant has ordered the record company, Sun executives in business management at the company, which is a command. Duty to regulate the practice of law by not complying. The plaintiff was a deliberate act of disobedience of lawful employment. The employer will need to stay fired without notice or any claims under Section 583 and the Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 17, paragraph five, the plaintiff is not entitled to pay instead. notice.
Supreme Court at 259 - 260/2551.
Even some Labour Court ruled that the dispute will be diagnosed with some concise. But when you consider that the decision by the dispute at issue in the assembly. It is said or shown by the facts of the case and decide on issues together. By reason of a decision by the next. Sentence such as unlawful. Act on Establishment of Labour Court and Labour Court under Section 51 Para.
Employed as a waiter, food During the beer. Preserved as a mouse. It's time to stop just 5 minutes, the waiter did not have the potential to cause damage to the employer. The employee did not appear to have been drunk or causing damage to the employer or the employer's customers did not appear to have criticized the performance of the employee. If the employee does not violate any regulations regarding the operation of the employer. But to drink beer while on duty shall be considered willful disobedience of employers to dismiss employees without notice at front of Section 583.
If the employee asks the employer to the employee during the Late Payment of interest rates. Seven and a half per cent per year. To be fair, the Supreme Court would require the employer to pay the interest on the compensation rate. Fifteen percent per year from the date of the filing. Act on Establishment of Labour Court and Labour Court Procedure, Section 52.
Supreme Court in 8587 - 8591/2550.
The five co-plaintiff to gamble high low normal weekday lunch time in the car park at the office of the defendant. Police officer arrested the plaintiff and five with gambling. When playing high-low five plaintiffs under the Gambling Act, gambling at July 2478, despite playing part-time workers. But within the corporate defendant. The violation of regulations pertaining to the defendant or the defendant company's employees in the area of gambling. And gambling is the cause of the quarrel discord. Induce others to commit crimes. And affect the reputation of the defendant. Violation of regulations concerning the operation of the five plaintiffs, the case is serious. The five defendants, the plaintiff was terminated without notice. Do not pay compensation. And not a dismissal unfair.
Supreme Court in 7313/2550.
Thor has a position as manager of the Northern Region of Russia is responsible for management of the company to produce helicopters for clients by effectively Factory is responsible for the helicopter to 4, but returned to the Company. The helicopter was carrying the same with its head office in the premises of the company's helicopters are not married by the district, the wife of the Thor shareholders. in Ch. an act of hostility against Thor is a business, trade and compete with Russia, which is the employer. The violation of regulations regarding the lawful and fair as the helicopter was a serious case of termination of Thor without compensation accordingly. Labour Protection Act, Section 119 (4) The notice under Section 583 and not a dismissal as unfair.
Supreme Court in 5099/2550.
Even before the contract. The two defense contractors who have conditions that Plaintiffs do not go to work with others. The plaintiff objected to the contract must be given. The contract also contains a condition of employment that The plaintiff must not use or disclose confidential information to a defendant who is an employee of another person is strictly prohibited. Or act contrary to the interests of the defendant that a message is not the contract that the plaintiff can not be allowed to the plaintiff breached the contract. The agreement with the plaintiff is not obliged to exceed the expectations Reply Post Reply will normally follow that the plaintiff claims that a defendant in any appeal, the plaintiff worked as a consultant hired management. The plaintiff worked as director before. Although not specified in the contract prohibiting the plaintiff to work with others. But when the plaintiff has not acted in a manner contrary to the interests of the company. The plaintiff, an employee in the position of director of education in the business of the defendant, one would be contrary to the interests of the defendant, one of the acts not worthy to perform their mission. to accurately and honestly. Both plaintiff and defendant, dismissal without notice. The plaintiff has no right to claim pay in lieu of notice. Both defendants claim that the dismissal of plaintiff's claim as an excuse to be justified. It is not a dismissal unfair. The plaintiff had no right to claim damages.
Supreme Court in 4105 - 4108/2550.
The defendant ordered the plaintiff, the four defendants worked at agencies in London to work at an agency of the defendant in Rayong province. Ang Thong province. Ayutthaya. Samut Prakan and Chachoengsao provinces. This move by the defendant is entitled to act in accordance with the defendant. Even if the relocation work will affect the daily lives of their families who were relocated, it is not uncommon. But a new defendant to the plaintiff, the four go to work and earn wages that are lower than the original position. When the defendant did not appear to have been done to the plaintiff that the persecution of the four. Order the defendant to move with the regulations concerning the operation and the law. The four plaintiffs are required to perform the functions of agencies under orders to move. The four plaintiffs are not going to work in order to function at work, thus abandoning the duties of the position without reasonable cause. The four plaintiffs will continue to operate according to the Chiang Mai is a desert The four defendants, the plaintiff to work in a new role on April 18, 2548, but four of the plaintiff until April 20, 2548 not to abandon her duty for three consecutive days. The four defendants terminated plaintiff without compensation accordingly. Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 119 (5).
The four plaintiffs, an employee has a duty and responsibility under the Contract Labour and the Civil and Commercial Code to comply with an order to move it. When the plaintiff fails to comply with four new functions not to work at the agency in order to move. It is not the act of performing the duties of their mission to accurately and honestly. The four defendants, the plaintiff was terminated without notice under Section 583 must pay the defendant did not pay notice to the plaintiff, instead of four. The defendant terminated plaintiff because of the four truancy for 3 consecutive days without a reasonable excuse. The termination to be justified. It is not unfair dismissal. Defendants do not have to pay damages for unfair dismissal to the plaintiff's four.
Supreme Court in 7096/2550.
Terms and conditions of employment. The right of employers to lay off employees because of lack of fitness that. "If an employee can not perform according to standards set by the company to training or even training. Or from lack of work or lack of responsibility often do not work or are rated low by their superiors several times.And if the employee is often absent or irresponsible to ignore, or are rated low by their superiors. In the first case, the employer may terminate his employment by the employer to train or coach, then the employee could not perform to the standards of the employer. This is the case, the employee may not perform to the standards of the employer. In the latter case, the employee is frequently absent or irresponsible to ignore, or are rated low by their superiors several times. Which shows that. Is a case about the conduct of its employees, which can be adjusted better. In the latter case, employers would lay off employees if the employer had a written warning or the employee had been punished. However, employees do not improve for the better, as well as the satisfaction of their superiors, so that the employers will need a written warning or punishment, then it can be a force to be the first. The fact that the Central Labour Court hearing. The evaluation of the plaintiff several times. Plaintiff's work would remain low and are not part of the plaintiff, the defendant failed to perform according to the standard. The defendant is entitled to dismissal of the plaintiff without warning in writing or otherwise penalized before. The defendant terminated the plaintiff even though plaintiff was not warned or penalized as before. Therefore, with the agreement on employment conditions, as mentioned above. It is also the case that there should be enough to dismiss it. It is not a dismissal unfair.
Supreme Court in 6021/2550.
The defendant is a subsidiary of the parent company in the UK, with offices around the world. Regional offices to supervise the defendant is Chor (Singapore), the plaintiff worked as a servant Jor (Australia) and transferred to an employee Chor (Malaysia) by the plaintiff is entitled to the time worked. together. And the plaintiff would be entitled to holidays in the long run as it used to be next. The plaintiff, an employee transferred to the defendant. And entered into an agreement with the province (Singapore) stated that the plaintiff's employment continued to work with Chor (Singapore), and the plaintiff still has the right to build a working holiday in the next. While it used to be. The terms of these agreements is not expressly prohibited by law, it was impossible. Or contrary to public order, public morality or even the Labour Protection Act. Not so with the holidays of the employees worked for the defendant, the employer is not bound by
Supreme Court to 10332/2550.
The notice of termination of employment. One of the reasons for the dismissal of the plaintiff did not work on 22 and 26 March 2547, but has a record of the defendant that the plaintiff was working that day. The defendant must pay for food, the plaintiff was 10 baht for 2 days is $ 20 due to malpractice on 22 and 26 March 2547, which does not correspond to the Central Labour Court hearing the fact that the plaintiff was working on. March 24, 2547, but the data show that the plaintiff was working that day. The plaintiff was the diligence of U.S. $ 300 per month and the food at 10 baht a malpractice on March 24, 2547, the same day as malpractice. It specifies a malpractice plaintiff to the defendant as a reason for dismissal. Plaintiffs in the notice of termination of the contract then. Simply specify the date the malpractice plaintiff to the defendant would raise the profile as the reason for malpractice plaintiffs to pay compensation up against the old-fashioned.
Supreme Court in 2289/2550.
Notice under Section 582, paragraph one, the only party to give notice to the other party. One to know in advance that it will terminate the contract. The notice was to be paid stipend at any one time. Or before the payment of remuneration at any one time will cause it to quit. Contract when it is time to pay the stipend only. Does not require notice within normal at all. The notice of termination is effective after the party receives notice it. Receive notice that Plaintiff's notice, dismissal of defendant 1 on 30 August 2545 and accused of a scheduled pay date of 25 months notice to terminate the contract of the defendant at first, so as to terminate the contract when due. to pay at the next date is October 24, 2545, when the defendant is a plaintiff termination of an employee from the date of September 2, 2545 must pay a stipend in lieu of notice to the plaintiff from the date of September 2, 2545 until October 24, 2545. for a period of 53 days.
Pay in lieu of notice the law does not specifically have a right to interest on the overdue interest at 7.5 percent per year, according to Section 224 paragraph one, but on demand. The plaintiffs claim the defendant did not appear at a settlement when a defendant must pay interest from the date of filing.
Supreme Court to 787/2550.
Plaintiff's life insurance and life insurance business was incorporated defendant T. was on March 27, 2543, by transfer in the life of Thor, so from April 11, 2535 until March 26, 2543 Company. . Still, the life insurance business of life insurance and both accompanied by not establishing a new company to obtain a license to operate life insurance business under Section 121, paragraph two, but the business of insurance under the provisions of Section 121, paragraph one of them. continue to be made under the condition that the revenue and expenditure must be separated T. insurance business into a separate part of the revenues and expenses of the life insurance business in the insurance and life insurance are all part of the T.. is the employer of the plaintiff.
identified as the specific conditions under which the plaintiff was an employee only. The plaintiff must comply with the order of T., and works as a supervisor assigned to the T. The plaintiff, a service run casualty insurance as well. The life insurance business, which is part of T. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff by the terms of employment. The plaintiff has no right to call the insurance company to pay the plaintiff Thor later on March 27, 2543, which incorporated the defendant. The transfer of the property's liabilities and responsibilities under the policy's assets and employees in the insurance business of Thor, but not to the plaintiff, an employee in the insurance business too. And after the date of March 27, 2543 to date, the plaintiff was terminated. Defendant, the plaintiff does not make life work. The plaintiff has no right to demand payment from the defendant.
Supreme Court to 200/2550.
Training contract between the plaintiffs and foreign defendants. Require the plaintiff, the employer is the cost of sending the defendant is employed to train abroad, and require the defendant to subject knowledge and experience gained from the training and work abroad. I used to work for the benefit of the plaintiff. It is a reciprocal agreement. The duration of the plaintiff to the defendant to two weeks, but training will be given time to return to the plaintiff to the defendant for a period of three years, it does not cause the plaintiff had an advantage. Because the defendant to the plaintiff to return to work. The defendant continued to receive compensation from working normally. Not truncated. The terms of the agreement also entitles the defendant to return to the plaintiff by the defendant to pay the costs of training and work all night to the plaintiff. The calculation of the cost.Is consistent with the agreement that entitles the defendant to pay the costs of training and see all the plaintiffs. Instead of returning to the plaintiff for a period of 3 years of the plaintiff, defendant's advantage as well. It is not unfair contract terms. Not contrary to public order and morality of the people. Training contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is a foreign country can not be null.
Supreme Court in 5978/2549.
After the defendant's order prohibits the defendants in the loan system. Plaintiffs also oppose loans to non-employees of the defendant by charging interest on loans up to 10 percent per month, according to a criminal offense. Act not to exceed the rate of interest. Although not a criminal offense knowingly to the employer. It is a criminal offense during the run. It is unfair and a hardship to our colleagues who are working to affect morale in the workplace. The business of the defendant would have been damaged. The plaintiff's action was a violation of the order of the defendants in serious cases. And the defendant was intentionally causing damage. The defendant terminated plaintiff without compensation and without notice of the dismissal unfair.
Supreme Court in 8242 - 8246/2549.
1 to 3, the plaintiff sued for overtime wages under the Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 5 defines the term "wages" means money that the employer and the employee agreed to pay a fee. return to work under the contract for the duration of working ... And the word "overtime" means money paid by the employer to the employee as compensation for overtime work on weekdays. If overtime is not paid within the meaning of such. It is not the money that employers pay to the employee to return to normal functioning of the working day. However, it is money that the employer pay compensation for work outside normal hours. The employer is bound by contract to pay employee wages. Regarded as overtime pay under Section 575 as a stipend under the Section 193/34 (9), which is a two-year litigation.
Supreme Court in 6701/2549.
Termination of employment without a fixed term contract of employment. There are general provisions in the Civil and Commercial Code Title 6, Section 3 of 582 which does not require that termination of employment shall be in writing. As provided in Section 17 paragraph two of the Labour Protection Act 2541, that the contract does not specify how long the employer or employee may terminate the agreement. Employed by the other party notice in writing to do so. I shall not prohibit any employer or employee terminates the contract verbally. But the other party know when or before the due payment of wages at any one time for a contract to pay wages when due next time, only ahead. Termination of employment may be made in writing or verbally.
Supreme Court in 6699/2549.
To determine the relationship of the individual as well as employers and employees. Social Security Act 2533, Section 5 is the fact that a person who is employed by the authority shall comply with the rules and regulations concerning the operation of the employer. In fact, the relationship of employer and employee in accordance with Section 583.
Ticket sales. Work during the specified time to go to work or not. If not, just let the phone. I must leave. Receive compensation from the sale of tickets sold each day, you can not sell it or sell it, just one will not receive compensation. It will be sold on any such date is not a holiday. Leave and benefits. It is run independently. Not in the power commander and do not follow the rules or regulations relating to the work. Agreed to abide by the wishes of the employee who sold the line to be charged a penalty. It is not a power commander. It is the only effective rules to make sales. The relationship between the plaintiff's employees, employers and workers are thus not well ticket sales.
Supreme Court in 6433/2549.
Defendant at first agreed to pay compensation to the plaintiff by paying on behalf of the plaintiff's monthly 47,000 baht and paid on behalf of the mother, the plaintiff per 73,730 by the mother, the plaintiff was working for the defendants 1 to the agreement. pay the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff's mother. It was intended to cause the plaintiff's taxable income that is used to calculate the personal income tax and the taxable grade of the plaintiff that has actually been dropped from the labor contract between the defendant and the plaintiff, even with an agreement. how to pay the filing state personal income tax resulting from the plaintiff was less regarded as dishonest. The agreement would be void. The plaintiff is entitled to be paid in this section. With interest rates of 15 percent per year from the date of default until a payment is made to the plaintiffPlaintiffs who have expertise and experience in law. Have a duty to provide advice on legal issues and questions about the defendant's attorney or another party. The banks of the defendant. Subsidiary of the defendant. And the President of the defendant. The problem with normal banking practices in the business of the defendant. The plaintiff is to educate the workers to be able to use its discretion to audit quality and prevent damage. The plaintiff will be able to comment to provide advice and make recommendations based on independent knowledge of the plaintiff in the legal profession without a supervisor's direct control. And time to work. The plaintiff was required to work in the office of the defendant is ready to act when there was a consultation. Under the regulations or orders of the defendant and his subordinates of the President of the defendant. Even if the plaintiff is not entitled to extra pension benefits or other rewards that other employees receive. However, the plaintiff received compensation under the contract on a monthly basis. Sick leave credits, they must report to the President of the defendant. Can not stop the indiscriminate use of the plaintiff. Contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is a labor contract under the provisions of Labour Protection Act BE 2541.
Supreme Court in 4777/2549.
Contract Clause 11, the defendant agreed to a contract with the plaintiff that Within one year from the date of termination of an employee of the defendant, the plaintiff. The defendant is not going to work with companies that are competitors to the plaintiff or any other action. Whether directly or indirectly in competition with the business of the plaintiff. Such prohibition does not define the area. But the time allowed and forbidden action, which in this case is to work in other businesses about the airline competition with the plaintiff. When the plaintiff is a legal entity registered in Thailand. With headquarters located in Thailand, the plaintiff did not appear to have a branch or even a business based in Hong Kong Company. The business is headquartered in Hong Kong. It is a subsidiary of the plaintiff. The company said it is a separate entity from the plaintiff entities. That's not the business of the Company. Is the business of the plaintiff and the Company. The plaintiff's business, products to sell. Despite competing with the Company's business. There is no impact to the business of the plaintiff. The defendant worked with the Company. The business is headquartered in Hong Kong. It does not work in other businesses in competition with the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 7675/2548.
Announcement of the plaintiff to notify the employer of the plaintiff that the need to temporarily stop all activities and paid to the employee at the rate of fifty percent of the wages of the working day for the duration of the plaintiff as a temporary stop operation. Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 75 is not a book, lay employees. The announcement will indicate the employee to immediate termination of an employee to work with other entities. It is the only condition that the plaintiff is entitled to terminate the employment of the employee only. The defendants, two of which are employed to work with other entities can not be agreed to terminate the contract with plaintiff, defendant, the two continue to be employed plaintiff. Between the plaintiff and the Company announced the temporary The plaintiff accused the two do not assign a portion of the plaintiff to pay fifty percent of the wages were not paid. The amount to be paid pursuant to Section 75 and Section A of the Act does not prohibit an employee to work with others in the employer announced its temporary stop. The second defendant to the other person is not truancy, or an employment contract. When the plaintiff by the defendant's dismissal of two defendants not guilty under Section 119 of the second plaintiff, the defendant must pay for 2.
Supreme Court in 7084 - 7289/2548.
The plaintiff sued the defendant company, the employer shall pay severance pay in lieu of notice and order to the employee's labor. The employee sued the employer to pay the Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 124, paragraph three, and the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 582, who was a shareholder of the defendant. Not accept the employee to work without pay is not authorized to act on behalf of the defendant as a person and not be assigned by an authorized agent acting on behalf of the defendant. It is not the employer under the Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 5, and not an agreement to pay Is not an employer under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 575 on the petitioner is not the employer is under no obligation to pay such money to the plaintiff. Who sings is not legal stakeholders in the outcome of the case. Who will become a co-defendant under the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 57 (2) of the Act established the Labour Court and Labour Court Procedure, BE 2522, Section 31.
Supreme Court in 6786/2548.
The term "wages or other remuneration" that the employee claims the employer under Section 193/34 (9) refers to remuneration under section 575 as the rights arising under the contract. The right to receive damages from unfair dismissal. Including the right to receive compensation and pay in lieu of notice the employee claims the employer. The rights arising from the termination of the contract end. No rights under the contract. Not in force of Article 193 / 34 (9) is valid for 10 years under Section 193/30.
Supreme Court in 2970/2548.
The employee who agrees to work for the employer to pay under the command of employment means that employees have to work as an employer and must comply with rules or regulations regarding the operation of the employer. If the employee violates the employer can punish them. Therefore, the plaintiff must be under the control of the defendant. Or to comply with rules or regulations pertaining to the defendant. If the plaintiff does not fall under the command of the defendant. The plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant. Are not entitled to wages and compensation from the defendant.
Supreme Court in 2548/2548.
The plaintiff is a director and shareholder of the defendant company. Responsible for marketing. Plaintiff to come to work every day. Some or most of it is our job. Operational or problem-solving routine. Plaintiffs do it independently. Except big. Or a higher amount. Or may cause damage. The plaintiff must receive approval from the Board of Directors or Advisory Board had before Sat. Plaintiffs are not required under the rules or regulations in the work of the defendant. The plaintiff worked as directors and shareholders must maintain the interests of the defendant that the plaintiff company was a co-founder. The plaintiff will receive a salary from the defendant. Without a labor contract in accordance with Section 575 the plaintiff was not in a position as an employee of the defendant company. When the shareholders' meeting resolved to the plaintiff from the defendant company. The plaintiff has no right to sue over any money. Employment contract of the defendant.
Supreme Court in 2189 - 2190/2548.
The employment contract of a contract made a similar manner. Employees or contractors are required to work for the employer or the employer. And the employer or the employer agrees to pay remuneration to the employees or contractors in return as well. It has a different key. Employment contract, the employee must work for the employer for the purposes of the labor contract agreed upon without the need for an agreed purpose to the success of the one in particular. Or compensation from the completion of the work agreed upon in any way. Employer under the labor contract shall have the right to assign and monitor the work of any employee to work under previous terms and conditions of employment with them. The making of the contract. The employer and employee are the intent and purpose to the success of one or more of the agreements hired to do. By the successful outcome of the work agreed to do so is immaterial. The employer shall not be entitled to instruct the contractor in any way. Circumstances that are paid on a monthly basis. Supply of equipment and hiring workers to work for it. Despite the circumstances that often arise in the case of an employee to work for the employer under any contract of employment. It is not the fact that I have always been the case under all employment. Since the contract was made, there may be circumstances, compensation or the provision of work tools or equipment, as well as employment as well.
Section 576 if the circumstances could not be expected that it will make it a gem. He would equate to an implied promise to pay.
Section 577 allows employers to transfer their rights to third parties on employee compliance with
Employees to third parties or their representatives to work on employer compliance with
If any party violates the provisions of this Other party may terminate the contract time.
Section 578 if the employee expressly or implicitly endorsed by the expression that he is a special skill. If it appears that the unskilled, the gem. Employers like to tell you that it has terminated the contract.
Section 579 of the employee's absence from work without reasonable cause, and that a reasonable period of time. That does not make the employer has the right to terminate the agreement.
Section 580 is not required by contract or custom to be paid remuneration when You may not be paid when the work has been completed. If the payment of remuneration is set aside for a period not to be paid at the time that all the time.
Section 581 if the duration of the agreement between the employer and the employee continues to work down further. And employers know they are not upset so soon. You shall be presumed that the parties entered into new employment contracts with the same old However, either party may terminate the contract by notice in accordance with the provisions of the following.
Section 582 If the parties do not set down in the contract that will pay well for it. That any party to terminate the contract by notice on or before the payment to pay at any one time. The contract is scheduled to pay when the next time it could be done ahead. I do not need more than three months notice.
In addition, when a notice like this. The employer pays the employee to pay the full amount to be paid until the time of termination, pursuant to notice it. To immediately release the employee from work may be done.
Section 583 If an employer's willful disobedience of a lawful good. Or negligent disregard of such orders is always good. Abandon the work going to waste it. Serious offense better. Or do otherwise is not worthy to perform their duties properly and in good faith to accomplish by it. You will be fired by their employers are required to give notice or any claims.
Section 584 if the employment of any material is the person who is the employer. That such contract shall terminate with the death of the employer.
Section 585 on the hiring end down. Employees prefer to receive warrants that such employee has worked for the farm and how to do it.
Section 586 if the employee is hired, the employer has taken out a foreign employer-paid trip to remember. When employers terminate If you do not specify otherwise in the contract. He said employers must use the money to go back. It must be the following.
(1) the contract is not terminated or suspended because of the act or fault of the employee and
(2) the employee was hired to take place within a reasonable time.
Supreme Court in 4970/2552.
Its main purpose is accused of engaging a consultant to design and construction of gas pipelines, the defendant hired a consulting engineer in the design of gas pipeline companies. The defendant hired the plaintiff and defendant to work as an engineer in the program of the Company. defendant to pay compensation to the plaintiff to the Company. the plaintiff continued. As compensation under the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for Period of normal operation of the plaintiff as the wages. The plaintiff must follow the command and supervision of the Company. It is a case where the accused person shall have their part to the Company. Representing the defendant while the plaintiff to the defendant's statement to the task. Done according to the contract between the defendant company. When completed, the new design. A letter to the defendant that the plaintiff's termination. As the Company. The plaintiff returned to the defendant. The power to dismiss the plaintiff remains a defendant. The defendant has no power to supervise the plaintiff did not in any way. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant.
Supreme Court in 7717/2551.
If the employer fails to pay the compensation. Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 118, paragraph three, the agreement between the employer and the employee must be in accordance with Article 118, paragraph four, that this is a non-exclusive contract in the ordinary course of business or trade. Employers must have at the beginning and end of the course. Or in an occasional appearance at the scheduled termination or completion of the work or the work is seasonal and is employed at the time of the season. This work will be completed in less than two years. By employers and employees into a written agreement since the start of employment.
Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 5 means that the employer pay compensation to the employee upon termination of employment. In addition to other monies which the employer agrees to pay to the employee. The defendant paid the plaintiff before the expiration of a period of 12 months under the contract are not compensated.
Contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was a contract for a period of employment. Of course, during the period April 14, 2543 until April 13, 2544, but at the end of such period on April 13, 2544 the defendant did not terminate the employment of the plaintiff. Plaintiff continued to work. It also would pay the plaintiff. Must be made by the new contract similar to the original agreement under Section 581 a contract for an indefinite period of employment together. Thus, when the plaintiff accused the defendant to dismissal of the plaintiff's notice. On or before the payment of wages at any one time. To make a termination payment of wages when due next time.
Supreme Court in 7699/2551.
Plaintiffs have rules about how to comply with the province is working day and any day may not come to work must do. Failure to comply will result. This is the power to supervise the operations of the province by province so I can work independently to achieve a successful outcome of the work only. The agreement requires the plaintiff to pay a monthly return on the province throughout the province to work for the plaintiff. The overtime pay. Overtime on the weekend. The work on the weekend. The remuneration paid to the District Court for the success of the work will be done by contract, not the subject of such contracts is to determine whether the addition. Previous driving under the contract with the province to work as assigned by the plaintiff. It can be seen as the remuneration of work is not only to the completion of the work done. The driver only. But as time worked for wages, whether any duty is payable on a monthly basis, so the contract between the plaintiff has a contract with the District labor contract is not made of the plaintiff's appeal.
Supreme Court in 6098/2551.
Central Labour Court ruled that the facts and listen. The plaintiff as a manager for a car to get the car repaired to the dispute department control. Plaintiff has the duty to submit documents related to the agency, the employer of the defendant to file a claim with the insurer for the spare parts within a reasonable time. But the plaintiff did not commit. The plaintiff's failure to perform duties as instructed by the employer's unlawful acts and to perform their duties can not be done to accurately and honestly. The defendant, who is the employer has the right to terminate plaintiff's employment without notice under Section 583, which is diagnosed according to the defense of the accused.
To determine whether the dismissal unfair. Establishment of Labour Court Act, Section 49, the court must consider the true cause of the dismissal the employer has a reasonable excuse or not. The cause of dismissal may not be the case based on testimony of the defendant or as specified in the letter of termination as set forth in Section 17 paragraph three of the Labour Protection Act and it's a different case with. The termination notice shall not. The Court has jurisdiction over the cause of termination and dismissal of the plaintiff that the defendant, and Why is fair or not. The Court announced that the Central Labor put forward a regulation on the operation of the department to repair the document, the District 3 and the notice of the change in the performance of the department's decision to fix the meaning of the District 4 Plaintiffs attest to that. Thus, the defendant terminated the plaintiff as a result of the defendants are not satisfied that the defendant asked the plaintiff to the normal working hours. Plaintiffs contend, however, objected, and filed complaints to labor inspectors and that is why she can not change the working hours of the plaintiff. Not be dismissed because of plaintiff's fault or negligence of duty by the defendant to the battle. The decision of the Central Labour Court with the law.
Supreme Court in 4203/2551.
The plaintiff pointed to the sharp limits of the car parked in the parking lot of Sun employees have been damaged. The action of the plaintiff, thus damaging the property of another person in the defendant company. According to the regulations concerning the defendant is a serious offense to the termination of employment. When considering the regulations and it was clear that the defendant intended to prevent the destruction of property belonging to the defendant but also to others in the defendant's assets are protected as the property of the defendant as well. If they are able to destroy property in the defendant. Other employees of the defendant would not normally have worked. Especially in the parking lot where the defendant's employees to park their cars. May not care as long as it works to the defendant. Should be taken care of by the defendant as the defendant has installed CCTV cameras to check for evidence if a crime has occurred. Considering the wealth that made the car an asset whose price and the employee is required to get work done at the parking area of the defendant. And the use of a sharp knife is an act of others who do not pay attention to the suffering of others. Should not be doing it. Circumstances of the plaintiff's action is indeed regarded as a serious offense in itself. Defendants are dismissed without notice by the plaintiff's Section 583 do not have to pay accordingly. Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 119 (4), and not a dismissal as unfair.
Supreme Court in 2035/2551.
When the plaintiff that the defendant has ordered the record company, Sun executives in business management at the company, which is a command serves to regulate the practice of law by not complying. The plaintiff was a deliberate act of disobedience of lawful employment. The employer will need to stay fired without notice or any claims under Section 583 and the Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 17, paragraph five, the plaintiff is not entitled to pay instead. notice.
Supreme Court in 1605/2551.
Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 13 for the case of changes to the employer that the employer is a party. Natural or juristic person. As a result, the employer must accept the rights and obligations relating to existing employees. With the same employer in all respects. If an employee is transferred to the new employer is required by Section 577 cases in which employers, employees and employers will be on compliance with And when employees consent to such assignment, the employee must. Compliance with the regulations or orders of the new employer as well, it appears that while the plaintiff to the defendant's first regulations on the retirement after 65 years of age or later, the defendant, a transfer plaintiff to the defendant to two regulations on the retirement at the age of 60 years of age and the defendant, the second transfer of the plaintiff to the defendant, the three defendants, three have rules about how his retirement after 60 years of age. The transfer of the plaintiff against a defendant to the defendant, 2 and 3 to comply with Section 577 will cause the retirement of the plaintiff's right to be declining. The transfer of the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff must comply with the new employer. The plaintiff does not claim full retirement at the age of 65 years of age in accordance with the defendant that a new employer. The third defendant terminated plaintiff's employment was not terminated by reason but harassment. Reasonable and adequate. Is not a dismissal unfair by. Act on Establishment of Labour Court and Labour Court Procedure, BE 2522, Section 49.
Supreme Court at 259 - 260/2551.
Employed as a waiter, food During the beer. Preserved as a mouse. It's time to stop just 5 minutes, the waiter did not have the potential to cause damage to the employer. The employee did not appear to have been drunk or causing any damage to the employer. The employer did not appear to have criticized the performance of the employee. If the employee does not violate any regulations regarding the operation of the employer. But to drink beer while on duty shall be considered willful disobedience of employers. The employer dismissed without notice at front of Section 583.
Supreme Court in 7398 - 7399/2551.
The State Enterprise Labor Relations Act. The definition of the word. "Enterprises" that specifically refers to (1) of the Government Organization Act to establish a government or business. State law establishing the entity. And shall include the business units owned by the Government (2) a corporation or partnership entity or public body that has the status of the department or state equivalent (1), the total cost by more than fifty percent. The Petroleum Authority of Thailand has been transformed into a Por on October 1, 2544 The company said it is a state enterprise under Section 6 (2) of the Act. It accused the company is owned by the ministries, departments or public bodies or enterprises that have equal status under Section 6 (a) not more than fifty percent. As a result, defendants are not state-owned enterprises and the subject. State Enterprise Labour Relations Act, the longer it will fall under the general provisions of labor law. The Events Company Ltd., which was established by the union. The State Enterprise Labor Relations Act. Would end up as a union state on October 1, 2544 by the plaintiff is not protected by Section 24 of the Act. In addition, the union has not been canceled because of the registrar there. Order to repeal Section 66.
Since January 2545 until December 2545 the plaintiff to be at work at 8:00 o'clock, which is normally a total of 35 defendants issued a notification dated January 21, 2546 was held on January 9, 2546 the plaintiff to show a modal blasphemy. cynical and vulgar talk disrespectful to the commander directly accused the notice dated February 7, 2546 signed between the two documents. Manager of the employee. Both of these books as being a warning to improve their behavior. And identify the perpetrators of the plaintiff as well. They have exactly the same. "So for you to edit and improve the conduct of an employee. And act in a proper regulatory and professional standards of the company has seized you by the letter of warning to improve the behavior of a reminder that if you violate the rules of corporate wrongdoing like that. We will consider the penalty in weight to "the show that from January 2546 to March 2546 plaintiffs continued to be a warning to the building work, and work from 8:00 o'clock total of 13 defendants have letter dated March 24, 2546 signed by the new. as well, but a repeat offender subject to a notice of warning. When the evidence of the plaintiff in such a state that. Violation repeated warnings. Stating that the company will consider disciplinary action in accordance with the proceeding shall have the punishment of the plaintiff by issuing a warning letter after the letter was 9 days, defendants issued a release the defendant from the staff, the notice of the action. The repeated warnings. It is not a written warning notice to the plaintiff that the defendant violated the plaintiff's breach of repeated warnings by the regulations governing the work and the employer has a written warning to the defendant was not required to pay compensation to the plaintiff. Labour Protection Act, Section 119 (4) the plaintiff's negligent disregard for the employer's lawful orders of the defendant as an employer can always be dismissed without notice or compensation at the side instead. Section 583 of the Labour Protection Act, Section 17, the circumstances of the work. Including violations of orders and regulations of the defendant have reason to. The defendant terminated plaintiff. It is not a dismissal unfair.
Supreme Court in 4203/2551.
The plaintiff pointed to the sharp limits of the car parked in the parking lot of Sun employees have been damaged. The action of the plaintiff, thus damaging the property of another person in the defendant company. According to the regulations concerning the defendant is a serious offense to the termination of employment. When considering the regulations and it was clear that the defendant intends to United. The destruction of property belonging to the defendant but also the wealth of individuals. Another defendant in the company are protected property of the defendant as well. If they are able to destroy property in the defendant. Other employees of the defendant would not normally have worked. Especially in the parking lot where the defendant's employees to park their cars. May not care as long as it works to the defendant. Should be taken care of by the defendant as the defendant will be seen that installation. CCTV to monitor for evidence if the offense occurred. Considering the wealth that made the car an asset whose price and Employees must use to get work done at the parking area of the defendant. And the use of a sharp knife is an act of others who do not pay attention to the. Suffering of others. Should not be doing it. Circumstances of the plaintiff's action constitutes a serious offense as the defendant in the plaintiff's dismissal would be without prior notice, according to Section 583 do not have to pay accordingly. Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 119 (4), and not a dismissal as unfair. Act on Establishment of Labour Court and Labour Court Procedure, BE 2522, Section 49, the plaintiffs appealed that Plaintiffs admit that the real offender and damages to Mr. Sun, Mr. Sun was not impressed with the plaintiff took it. The plaintiff has a good before. It should also be taken as a reprieve to allow the plaintiff to the defendant that the dismissal of the plaintiff's conduct to the requirements of the defendant, then the court will have discretion to determine the punishment of the defendant.
Supreme Court in 3198 - 3279/2551.
The defendant ordered the plaintiff to an eight to twelve. Which is employed in the province to work at the hospital, Paul London. Job. Of the defendant at one time licensed to serve food between the defendants 1 and accused 2, where the defendant an offer to the plaintiff, eight of twelve chosen to work in other branches of the defendant to an existing job. and Bangkok. The grants are for rent per month and 1,000 on the plaintiff and eighty-two, no and no intention by the defendant at a known fact that one there is a need to order the plaintiff and eighty-two to the hospital. Paul's Hospital. Job. In a position not lower. The plaintiff, eight of twelve notify the defendant that one does not wish to perform the work of another of defendant No. 1 and not to act by the defendant at a given, it is abandoning a three-day working. with no justification under the Labour Protection Act, Section 119 (5), and an abandonment of the work to which a defendant will be dismissed without notice or compensation are to be fried instead of P.p. Since Section 583 and hence dismissed the case it is necessary and appropriate. It is not a dismissal as unfair. Act on Establishment of Labour Court and Labour Court Procedure, Section 49 defendants a dismissal of the plaintiff and eighty two, without paying compensation. Pay in lieu of notice and damages for unfair dismissal.
Supreme Court in 2035/2551.
When the plaintiff that the defendant has ordered the record company, Sun executives in business management at the company, which is a command. Duty to regulate the practice of law by not complying. The plaintiff was a deliberate act of disobedience of lawful employment. The employer will need to stay fired without notice or any claims under Section 583 and the Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 17, paragraph five, the plaintiff is not entitled to pay instead. notice.
Supreme Court at 259 - 260/2551.
Even some Labour Court ruled that the dispute will be diagnosed with some concise. But when you consider that the decision by the dispute at issue in the assembly. It is said or shown by the facts of the case and decide on issues together. By reason of a decision by the next. Sentence such as unlawful. Act on Establishment of Labour Court and Labour Court under Section 51 Para.
Employed as a waiter, food During the beer. Preserved as a mouse. It's time to stop just 5 minutes, the waiter did not have the potential to cause damage to the employer. The employee did not appear to have been drunk or causing damage to the employer or the employer's customers did not appear to have criticized the performance of the employee. If the employee does not violate any regulations regarding the operation of the employer. But to drink beer while on duty shall be considered willful disobedience of employers to dismiss employees without notice at front of Section 583.
If the employee asks the employer to the employee during the Late Payment of interest rates. Seven and a half per cent per year. To be fair, the Supreme Court would require the employer to pay the interest on the compensation rate. Fifteen percent per year from the date of the filing. Act on Establishment of Labour Court and Labour Court Procedure, Section 52.
Supreme Court in 8587 - 8591/2550.
The five co-plaintiff to gamble high low normal weekday lunch time in the car park at the office of the defendant. Police officer arrested the plaintiff and five with gambling. When playing high-low five plaintiffs under the Gambling Act, gambling at July 2478, despite playing part-time workers. But within the corporate defendant. The violation of regulations pertaining to the defendant or the defendant company's employees in the area of gambling. And gambling is the cause of the quarrel discord. Induce others to commit crimes. And affect the reputation of the defendant. Violation of regulations concerning the operation of the five plaintiffs, the case is serious. The five defendants, the plaintiff was terminated without notice. Do not pay compensation. And not a dismissal unfair.
Supreme Court in 7313/2550.
Thor has a position as manager of the Northern Region of Russia is responsible for management of the company to produce helicopters for clients by effectively Factory is responsible for the helicopter to 4, but returned to the Company. The helicopter was carrying the same with its head office in the premises of the company's helicopters are not married by the district, the wife of the Thor shareholders. in Ch. an act of hostility against Thor is a business, trade and compete with Russia, which is the employer. The violation of regulations regarding the lawful and fair as the helicopter was a serious case of termination of Thor without compensation accordingly. Labour Protection Act, Section 119 (4) The notice under Section 583 and not a dismissal as unfair.
Supreme Court in 5099/2550.
Even before the contract. The two defense contractors who have conditions that Plaintiffs do not go to work with others. The plaintiff objected to the contract must be given. The contract also contains a condition of employment that The plaintiff must not use or disclose confidential information to a defendant who is an employee of another person is strictly prohibited. Or act contrary to the interests of the defendant that a message is not the contract that the plaintiff can not be allowed to the plaintiff breached the contract. The agreement with the plaintiff is not obliged to exceed the expectations Reply Post Reply will normally follow that the plaintiff claims that a defendant in any appeal, the plaintiff worked as a consultant hired management. The plaintiff worked as director before. Although not specified in the contract prohibiting the plaintiff to work with others. But when the plaintiff has not acted in a manner contrary to the interests of the company. The plaintiff, an employee in the position of director of education in the business of the defendant, one would be contrary to the interests of the defendant, one of the acts not worthy to perform their mission. to accurately and honestly. Both plaintiff and defendant, dismissal without notice. The plaintiff has no right to claim pay in lieu of notice. Both defendants claim that the dismissal of plaintiff's claim as an excuse to be justified. It is not a dismissal unfair. The plaintiff had no right to claim damages.
Supreme Court in 4105 - 4108/2550.
The defendant ordered the plaintiff, the four defendants worked at agencies in London to work at an agency of the defendant in Rayong province. Ang Thong province. Ayutthaya. Samut Prakan and Chachoengsao provinces. This move by the defendant is entitled to act in accordance with the defendant. Even if the relocation work will affect the daily lives of their families who were relocated, it is not uncommon. But a new defendant to the plaintiff, the four go to work and earn wages that are lower than the original position. When the defendant did not appear to have been done to the plaintiff that the persecution of the four. Order the defendant to move with the regulations concerning the operation and the law. The four plaintiffs are required to perform the functions of agencies under orders to move. The four plaintiffs are not going to work in order to function at work, thus abandoning the duties of the position without reasonable cause. The four plaintiffs will continue to operate according to the Chiang Mai is a desert The four defendants, the plaintiff to work in a new role on April 18, 2548, but four of the plaintiff until April 20, 2548 not to abandon her duty for three consecutive days. The four defendants terminated plaintiff without compensation accordingly. Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 119 (5).
The four plaintiffs, an employee has a duty and responsibility under the Contract Labour and the Civil and Commercial Code to comply with an order to move it. When the plaintiff fails to comply with four new functions not to work at the agency in order to move. It is not the act of performing the duties of their mission to accurately and honestly. The four defendants, the plaintiff was terminated without notice under Section 583 must pay the defendant did not pay notice to the plaintiff, instead of four. The defendant terminated plaintiff because of the four truancy for 3 consecutive days without a reasonable excuse. The termination to be justified. It is not unfair dismissal. Defendants do not have to pay damages for unfair dismissal to the plaintiff's four.
Supreme Court in 7096/2550.
Terms and conditions of employment. The right of employers to lay off employees because of lack of fitness that. "If an employee can not perform according to standards set by the company to training or even training. Or from lack of work or lack of responsibility often do not work or are rated low by their superiors several times.And if the employee is often absent or irresponsible to ignore, or are rated low by their superiors. In the first case, the employer may terminate his employment by the employer to train or coach, then the employee could not perform to the standards of the employer. This is the case, the employee may not perform to the standards of the employer. In the latter case, the employee is frequently absent or irresponsible to ignore, or are rated low by their superiors several times. Which shows that. Is a case about the conduct of its employees, which can be adjusted better. In the latter case, employers would lay off employees if the employer had a written warning or the employee had been punished. However, employees do not improve for the better, as well as the satisfaction of their superiors, so that the employers will need a written warning or punishment, then it can be a force to be the first. The fact that the Central Labour Court hearing. The evaluation of the plaintiff several times. Plaintiff's work would remain low and are not part of the plaintiff, the defendant failed to perform according to the standard. The defendant is entitled to dismissal of the plaintiff without warning in writing or otherwise penalized before. The defendant terminated the plaintiff even though plaintiff was not warned or penalized as before. Therefore, with the agreement on employment conditions, as mentioned above. It is also the case that there should be enough to dismiss it. It is not a dismissal unfair.
Supreme Court in 6021/2550.
The defendant is a subsidiary of the parent company in the UK, with offices around the world. Regional offices to supervise the defendant is Chor (Singapore), the plaintiff worked as a servant Jor (Australia) and transferred to an employee Chor (Malaysia) by the plaintiff is entitled to the time worked. together. And the plaintiff would be entitled to holidays in the long run as it used to be next. The plaintiff, an employee transferred to the defendant. And entered into an agreement with the province (Singapore) stated that the plaintiff's employment continued to work with Chor (Singapore), and the plaintiff still has the right to build a working holiday in the next. While it used to be. The terms of these agreements is not expressly prohibited by law, it was impossible. Or contrary to public order, public morality or even the Labour Protection Act. Not so with the holidays of the employees worked for the defendant, the employer is not bound by
Supreme Court to 10332/2550.
The notice of termination of employment. One of the reasons for the dismissal of the plaintiff did not work on 22 and 26 March 2547, but has a record of the defendant that the plaintiff was working that day. The defendant must pay for food, the plaintiff was 10 baht for 2 days is $ 20 due to malpractice on 22 and 26 March 2547, which does not correspond to the Central Labour Court hearing the fact that the plaintiff was working on. March 24, 2547, but the data show that the plaintiff was working that day. The plaintiff was the diligence of U.S. $ 300 per month and the food at 10 baht a malpractice on March 24, 2547, the same day as malpractice. It specifies a malpractice plaintiff to the defendant as a reason for dismissal. Plaintiffs in the notice of termination of the contract then. Simply specify the date the malpractice plaintiff to the defendant would raise the profile as the reason for malpractice plaintiffs to pay compensation up against the old-fashioned.
Supreme Court in 2289/2550.
Notice under Section 582, paragraph one, the only party to give notice to the other party. One to know in advance that it will terminate the contract. The notice was to be paid stipend at any one time. Or before the payment of remuneration at any one time will cause it to quit. Contract when it is time to pay the stipend only. Does not require notice within normal at all. The notice of termination is effective after the party receives notice it. Receive notice that Plaintiff's notice, dismissal of defendant 1 on 30 August 2545 and accused of a scheduled pay date of 25 months notice to terminate the contract of the defendant at first, so as to terminate the contract when due. to pay at the next date is October 24, 2545, when the defendant is a plaintiff termination of an employee from the date of September 2, 2545 must pay a stipend in lieu of notice to the plaintiff from the date of September 2, 2545 until October 24, 2545. for a period of 53 days.
Pay in lieu of notice the law does not specifically have a right to interest on the overdue interest at 7.5 percent per year, according to Section 224 paragraph one, but on demand. The plaintiffs claim the defendant did not appear at a settlement when a defendant must pay interest from the date of filing.
Supreme Court to 787/2550.
Plaintiff's life insurance and life insurance business was incorporated defendant T. was on March 27, 2543, by transfer in the life of Thor, so from April 11, 2535 until March 26, 2543 Company. . Still, the life insurance business of life insurance and both accompanied by not establishing a new company to obtain a license to operate life insurance business under Section 121, paragraph two, but the business of insurance under the provisions of Section 121, paragraph one of them. continue to be made under the condition that the revenue and expenditure must be separated T. insurance business into a separate part of the revenues and expenses of the life insurance business in the insurance and life insurance are all part of the T.. is the employer of the plaintiff.
identified as the specific conditions under which the plaintiff was an employee only. The plaintiff must comply with the order of T., and works as a supervisor assigned to the T. The plaintiff, a service run casualty insurance as well. The life insurance business, which is part of T. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff by the terms of employment. The plaintiff has no right to call the insurance company to pay the plaintiff Thor later on March 27, 2543, which incorporated the defendant. The transfer of the property's liabilities and responsibilities under the policy's assets and employees in the insurance business of Thor, but not to the plaintiff, an employee in the insurance business too. And after the date of March 27, 2543 to date, the plaintiff was terminated. Defendant, the plaintiff does not make life work. The plaintiff has no right to demand payment from the defendant.
Supreme Court to 200/2550.
Training contract between the plaintiffs and foreign defendants. Require the plaintiff, the employer is the cost of sending the defendant is employed to train abroad, and require the defendant to subject knowledge and experience gained from the training and work abroad. I used to work for the benefit of the plaintiff. It is a reciprocal agreement. The duration of the plaintiff to the defendant to two weeks, but training will be given time to return to the plaintiff to the defendant for a period of three years, it does not cause the plaintiff had an advantage. Because the defendant to the plaintiff to return to work. The defendant continued to receive compensation from working normally. Not truncated. The terms of the agreement also entitles the defendant to return to the plaintiff by the defendant to pay the costs of training and work all night to the plaintiff. The calculation of the cost.Is consistent with the agreement that entitles the defendant to pay the costs of training and see all the plaintiffs. Instead of returning to the plaintiff for a period of 3 years of the plaintiff, defendant's advantage as well. It is not unfair contract terms. Not contrary to public order and morality of the people. Training contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is a foreign country can not be null.
Supreme Court in 5978/2549.
After the defendant's order prohibits the defendants in the loan system. Plaintiffs also oppose loans to non-employees of the defendant by charging interest on loans up to 10 percent per month, according to a criminal offense. Act not to exceed the rate of interest. Although not a criminal offense knowingly to the employer. It is a criminal offense during the run. It is unfair and a hardship to our colleagues who are working to affect morale in the workplace. The business of the defendant would have been damaged. The plaintiff's action was a violation of the order of the defendants in serious cases. And the defendant was intentionally causing damage. The defendant terminated plaintiff without compensation and without notice of the dismissal unfair.
Supreme Court in 8242 - 8246/2549.
1 to 3, the plaintiff sued for overtime wages under the Labour Protection Act 2541, Section 5 defines the term "wages" means money that the employer and the employee agreed to pay a fee. return to work under the contract for the duration of working ... And the word "overtime" means money paid by the employer to the employee as compensation for overtime work on weekdays. If overtime is not paid within the meaning of such. It is not the money that employers pay to the employee to return to normal functioning of the working day. However, it is money that the employer pay compensation for work outside normal hours. The employer is bound by contract to pay employee wages. Regarded as overtime pay under Section 575 as a stipend under the Section 193/34 (9), which is a two-year litigation.
Supreme Court in 6701/2549.
Termination of employment without a fixed term contract of employment. There are general provisions in the Civil and Commercial Code Title 6, Section 3 of 582 which does not require that termination of employment shall be in writing. As provided in Section 17 paragraph two of the Labour Protection Act 2541, that the contract does not specify how long the employer or employee may terminate the agreement. Employed by the other party notice in writing to do so. I shall not prohibit any employer or employee terminates the contract verbally. But the other party know when or before the due payment of wages at any one time for a contract to pay wages when due next time, only ahead. Termination of employment may be made in writing or verbally.
Supreme Court in 6699/2549.
To determine the relationship of the individual as well as employers and employees. Social Security Act 2533, Section 5 is the fact that a person who is employed by the authority shall comply with the rules and regulations concerning the operation of the employer. In fact, the relationship of employer and employee in accordance with Section 583.
Ticket sales. Work during the specified time to go to work or not. If not, just let the phone. I must leave. Receive compensation from the sale of tickets sold each day, you can not sell it or sell it, just one will not receive compensation. It will be sold on any such date is not a holiday. Leave and benefits. It is run independently. Not in the power commander and do not follow the rules or regulations relating to the work. Agreed to abide by the wishes of the employee who sold the line to be charged a penalty. It is not a power commander. It is the only effective rules to make sales. The relationship between the plaintiff's employees, employers and workers are thus not well ticket sales.
Supreme Court in 6433/2549.
Defendant at first agreed to pay compensation to the plaintiff by paying on behalf of the plaintiff's monthly 47,000 baht and paid on behalf of the mother, the plaintiff per 73,730 by the mother, the plaintiff was working for the defendants 1 to the agreement. pay the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff's mother. It was intended to cause the plaintiff's taxable income that is used to calculate the personal income tax and the taxable grade of the plaintiff that has actually been dropped from the labor contract between the defendant and the plaintiff, even with an agreement. how to pay the filing state personal income tax resulting from the plaintiff was less regarded as dishonest. The agreement would be void. The plaintiff is entitled to be paid in this section. With interest rates of 15 percent per year from the date of default until a payment is made to the plaintiff
