A labor contract

Section 575. A labor contract is a contract whereby a person called an employee agrees to work for another person. Called the employer And the employer agrees to pay all the time at work.

Section 576. If, according to circumstances, it can not be expected that the work will be done without. You will assume that there is a promise to pay.

Section 577. An employer shall transfer his or her rights to third parties upon the employee's consent.

Employees will be able to work outside on their behalf when the employer agrees.

If any party violates this provision. The other party will terminate the contract.

Section 578. If an employee certifies expressly or implicitly that he or she is a skilled person. If it appears that it is unworkable. You said your employer would like to terminate the contract.

Section 579 The termination of employment by reasonable cause and for a reasonable period of time. You do not give the employer the right to terminate the contract.

Section 580. If no contract or tradition is specified, how shall it be paid? You pay when the work is done. If payment is scheduled for a period of time, it should be paid at the end of each such period.

Section 581. If the period of employment has ended, the employee continues to work. And the employer knows it does not obey. You are presumed that the contract parties have renewed the same contract with the same. However, any party may terminate the contract by giving notice in accordance with the following provisions.

Section 582. If the parties do not specify in the contract to hire for a long time. You either terminate the contract by giving advance notice on or before the due date of payment. As a result of the termination of the contract when the next pay to pay the next time it may be. I do not need to pre-announce more than three months.

In that case, notice that this. The employer will pay the employee to pay the full amount to pay until the scheduled termination of the notice. Then leave the employee immediately.

Section 583 If the employee intentionally contravenes the order of the lawful employer Or neglected to take orders such that it is a good thing. Leave the job. Serious offense. I do not know how to do it. You will be dismissed without notice or compensation.

Section 584. If any of the workers is employed, the subject is the person who is the employer. You agree that such employment contract shall be withheld by the death of the employer.

Section 585. Employees like to receive a statement that the employee has worked for as long as the farm and work done is how it works.

Section 586 If an employee is employed by an employer but is not resident by the employer, When the labor force is over And if not set aside in the contract. You must pay the return trip. (1) The contract shall not be terminated or suspended by the offender or the offender; and (2) the employee shall return to the place of employment in a timely manner.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9480/2559.

              The operating instructions at 009/2551 on the pilot image that: 1. The hair must be neat and the man must not over his collar. Including the color of the hair must be polite and natural. 2. Mustache and Jon must be completed. Jon must be no longer than his earlobe and his beard is not allowed. 3. Uniforms and components of public uniforms for flight operations must be completed in accordance with the regulations. The order under the regulation of the defendant that the management of personnel specified that the supervisor responsible for the agency to determine the procedures or regulations on the work in the agency as necessary and appropriate. It is an order that is not in the sense of the employment conditions. The State Enterprise Labor Relations Act, BE 2543 (2000), Section 6, by which this provision extends the practice of pilot visas as defined in the Working Regulations. And at the end of the statement, if the pilot is intent on not doing so, refrain from flying until corrective action is taken, it is an additional statement from the existing and required pilot measures. follow Not subject to disciplinary action. The operation order 009/2551, like the State Enterprise Labor Relations Act 2000, as a command to guide all employees in the position of the pilot to prevent damage to. The reputation and corporate image of the defendant, a national airline and service business. The plaintiff was not a burden to the employees of the defendant in the position of a pilot. The religious belief of the plaintiff that the plaintiff can not comply with the order of the defendant or the restriction of personal freedom of the plaintiff's unreasonable. The execution of the order No. 009/2551 do not violate the rights of the plaintiff or unfair discrimination against the plaintiff, which is contrary to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand BE 2550 (2007), Section 30, paragraph one and Section 32 paragraph one used. Forced at the scene

         The defendant as an employer by the defendant 2 to 4, the plaintiff's supervisor issued a statement in accordance with the rules of the defendant, the plaintiff served as a pilot or Low Rank, the plaintiff still receive a salary based on the pilot. No. 1 can not hold that the four defendants committed a labor contract with the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9202/2559.

                   When considering the contract of hiring football players between the plaintiff and the defendant. Although the contracts mentioned in 3.1 and 3.2 will be that the plaintiff must comply with the rules of the defendant, either at the time of contract or re-established in the future. These regulations are part of the agreement. The plaintiff must be fully capable of practicing and following the instructor's instructions. Team officers or team executives of the defendants strictly. However, the main purpose of the contract is in Article 8. The parties understand that the purpose of this contract is the same, that the employer and the contractor are committed to the success of the work. The success of the training and the reputation of the employer in accordance with the policy of the employer. Clause 3 to Clause 5 of the Schedule of the Bonus Payment shall be based on the results of the winning result or if the winners receive a bonus of Baht 6,000 per person. Contestants will always receive a bonus of 3,500 baht per person, the evaluation schedule and prize money received from the competition and the highest score awarded by the judges. The group is based on competition and training. The main purpose of the contract is to focus on the results of the competition and the reputation of the defendant has determined the compensation for the success of the following. The contract to hire football players between the plaintiff and the defendant is a contract that the plaintiff hired the defendant to practice. Competition, as well as compliance with the instructor's instructions. Team Officer Or team management of the defendant. The aim is to achieve the mercenary job, which is the result of competition and lead to the reputation of the employer as the main target of the defendant. The contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is not a contract of employment under Section 575 if it is a civil contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9050/2559.

             The defendant appealed that before joining the project. The plaintiff knows the terms or conditions of the specified project regulations prohibit employees to participate in the program is entitled to return the bonus prepared to pay for the subscription. An appeal against the fact that the Central Labor Court heard that it was terminated. Project regulations were recently made after the plaintiffs first applied for the project. It is an appeal in fact. Appeal prohibited. Establishment of the Labor Court and Labor Court Procedure, BE 2522, Section 54, paragraph one of the contract between the plaintiff, an employee and the defendant, voluntary employer bound by the scheme to pay bonuses in the form of ordinary shares. The defendant made this project to be a welfare promotion and incentive for employees to be loyal to the organization. Show that the contract is based on the employment relationship law. It is a contract that is related to or arising from the employment of employees under the Act on Labor Protection Act BE 2541, Section 14/1, when the contract or conditions in accordance with Article 6.3 of the Project Regulations states that "... in the event of termination of employment of employees. Participating employees will not be entitled to subscribe for unallocated shares. It is not the case that employees or employees have resigned from their jobs and Clause 6.5 states that "unless otherwise stated in the regulations. This issue, in any case, includes not subscribing or canceling subscription rights. Employees participating in the program are not entitled to receive payment in respect of their performance (bonus) or special consideration paid for the share subscription. In addition to the use of funds to pay for the subscription of shares, "It is unclear whether the reason for not subscribing or canceling the subscription is due to acts or faults of the parties. any There is no penalty or deduction for bonuses in accordance with the circumstances of the action that causes no subscription. Consider working conditions. Cost of living The trouble of the plaintiff. Level of wages or other benefits of the plaintiff. The business of the defendant. General economic and social conditions And the conditions of the project are complementary. The rules of the project, the termination of the right to a refund of the bonus, which is the plaintiff's right to receive the plaintiff since the defendant approved each year will make the defendant as an employer, the plaintiff's advantage is unreasonable. The Central Labor Court has the power to order an agreement under a labor contract, which is the Code of Conduct in this section, which shall apply as fairly and reasonably as the case may be. Labor Protection Act BE 2541, Section 14/1, the defendant paid back the bonus that has not been purchased to buy shares and interest to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8683/2559.

           The four plaintiffs complained that the three defendants, who are employers, do not comply with the law on the safety of the work of the employee is the cause of death. The four plaintiffs have been damaged, the three defendants are liable for both the violation and the grounds of the offense. It is not the case that the three defendants are liable for the infringement only. In violation of the contract of employment, there is no law on age, especially the 10-year age limit under Section 193/30, the deadline to leave the job on August 1, 2009, the last day the defendant. 3, an employer who fails to comply with the duty to arrange the workplace in accordance with the law. On July 22, 2011, four plaintiffs sued the plaintiff for breach of labor contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8484 - 8485/2559

           The circumstances of the defendant did not announce the project and return the candidate to volunteer to resign all employees. The method used to determine the target employee is the plaintiffs, both of which have high compensation paid to leave the employee as a defendant. Preparing the resignation letter. The two plaintiff's remuneration before the two plaintiffs are invited to negotiate resignation. After both the plaintiff signed the letter of resignation, it also announced the termination of the plaintiff's insurer in the first term as a dismissal. Such circumstances of the defendant is the termination of the two plaintiffs. Try to avoid deviations, document evidence of resignation by virtue of superior employer bargaining. Termination of employment contract, whether in the case of the employer's intention to terminate employment or the employee's intention to resign. There is no law governing the intent of a person to act in accordance with a form or evidence in writing. It is not the case that the law requires witnesses to show documents. Not subject to the Civil Code Section 94, although the plaintiffs will both be signed off the letter. But it is also possible to bring witnesses that the plaintiffs both signed off the letter because the defendant was threatened. The Central Labor Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not voluntarily sign the letter. It's like listening to evidence. The defendant will claim that the defendant suffered from poor economic conditions. There is a need to reduce expenses. There are plans to reduce the number of employees. If it is true, it is a business problem that can reasonably be cited as a reason for termination of employment without unfair dismissal. If necessary, the reason. Define the method of termination. The selection of employees to leave is absolute and fair. Notify all employees. And do not follow the rules of the method. But when it does not appear that the defendant has announced the reasons for the criteria, methods of selection of employees in general. Which criteria to choose the plaintiff as the goal of leaving the job. In addition to the plaintiffs are employed at high pay. The defendant terminated the plaintiff's employment is unfair dismissal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8374/2559.

               Labor contract between the plaintiff, the employer and the first defendant, who is employed. The first defendant who served as a senior sales executive. It is the duty of the plaintiff to conduct business of coal. To work with any other employer who conducts trades of the same nature or competes with the plaintiff within two years from the termination of the employment contract. It is a reciprocal agreement that preserves the rights and benefits of the parties as they like. It is not unreasonable or unfavorable to enter into a contract to enter into unfair contract terms. It applies to the defendant, who signed the agreement in the contract. The defendant resigned and then work with other companies that operate the same as the plaintiff within two years from the date of termination of employment of the plaintiff. The defendant's labor contract was liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff under the labor contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8311/2559.

              The Labor Relations Act BE 2518, Section 123 is intended to promote and protect the organization of the employees. Do not interfere with the employer or use superior supervisory power as an employer. And use the economic power to oppress the employee or the employee's organization from exercising the legal right to file a claim. Negotiate to improve the employment situation. Employers are not allowed to terminate any employment, commission, subcommittee, or union membership in connection with a claim, so termination of employment is a violation of this section. An employer must have a motive to interfere with the activities of a trade union or prevent an employee from taking advantage of an employment agreement arising out of a negotiated agreement between the employer and the employee or the award. When the plaintiff dismissed the seven accused because they did not pass the appraisal of the trial because the seven accused had unsatisfactory performance. Some people get opportunities to work in new positions, they refuse to work. The plaintiff has the right and the right to terminate the employee in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment made while the employee voluntarily work and the principles of human resources management and human resources management. The employer has the right to select the most qualified workers. While not having any of the reasons given, an employer may terminate employment under (1) to (5) of that provision.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7990/2559.

                The plaintiff did not sue the defendant violated the plaintiff alone. The plaintiff sued the plaintiff while the defendant is the employee of the head of the production and distribution of dairy cows and acting as head of the Department of Dairy Promotion. Responsible for the management of the law, regulation, regulation and supervision of the work of the subordinate. Defendant does not act according to authority. The plaintiff can not be forced to repay debts from the partnership, which is a buyer. It is a lawsuit to enforce the defendant liable for both infringement and breach of contract. On the contrary, the contract of employment does not prescribe a specific age. The age of 10 years from the date that the claim may be enforceable is that the defendant violated the employment contract under Section 193/12 and 193/30, the defendant violated the failure to act under the authority. The regulations of the plaintiff during the period from 15 May 2001 to 31 August 2001 and the plaintiff was damaged. The alleged breach of labor contract and violation occurred during this period. The age of the debt defaults on labor and violations began from August 31, 2001, when the plaintiff sued the case on October 25, 2554 to more than 10 years, the plaintiff sued the case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7620/2559.

             The additional contract attached to the contract of employment. Clause 3 states that employees agree to work for the company for not less than 2 years from the date of work. If the employee wishes to resign before the due date. The employee agrees to indemnify the Company for not less than the last month salary paid by the employee. Can be considered as a default agreement for damage defaults. It is a penalty agreement when the plaintiff fails to pay the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 379 and 380, if it is too high, the Central Labor Court has the power to use penalties to reduce penalties in a reasonable amount of time to reflect the interests of. All creditors are lawful. It is not only the property of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one, that is, the Central Labor Court must consider the interests of the defendant as a creditor of all lawful. Not only the damage is calculated in money. In addition, penalties are also set to punish the plaintiff, who is a debtor, as well as the labor contract. I like to consider the grounds of the debtor's contract that is deliberately committed offense to exploit his advantage over the other party or not. The Central Labor Court will take no discretion to pay the damages, as there is no provision in the Civil and Commercial Code, which provides the power to stop all penalties, so the Central Labor Court must listen to the facts of the interests of the defendant. Lawful The purpose of the contract is to work for 2 years, the need to contract like this. The importance of the position of the plaintiff to the defendant. Other non-property damage Including the reason that the plaintiff's breach of labor contract is a deliberate act to exploit their own advantage over the other party or not. Then scrutinize the facts of the interests of the defendant, all of which are lawful, impose a fine.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7570/2559.

                Salesman's Guide to Clause 14 requires salespeople to be accountable for all sales accounts they sell, such as stores, cash, non-refundable, etc., as a pre-emptive injury guarantee. Sales will be liable for damages caused by the decision to sell the product to the customer of the employer. It is a contract of reciprocal rights and benefits between the employer and the employee. It does not affect the public order or the morals of the people. But the defendant, the employer imposed a regulation that the plaintiff, who is an employee who performs the duties of a lawful and honest labor contract, will also be responsible for the damage that he did not cause. It is a regulation that makes employers more advantageous and unfair to employees. The salesman's manual will remain effective for the plaintiff's liability to pay for the goods of the defendant's customers only if the plaintiff's first decision to sell goods and receive payment by check from the customer is not accurate and dishonest. As a result, the goods can not be paid to the defendant, even if the plaintiff to receive payment for goods from the customer as a check, and later refused to pay the goods. Why However, when the plaintiff's sales duty and the receipt of payment of goods in accordance with the manual for the salesman said. The defendant did not receive payment for goods. Acting under the employment contract in good faith and in the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not required to pay the amount of goods under the check to the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5230/2559.

            Section 81 of the Tax Act states that "Exemption of VAT for business operations as follows... (M) providing services under employment contracts. "The contract of care between the plaintiff and the plaintiff with the Company Clause 3 that the employer agrees to pay the wages to the contractor. Details of wage rates and payment periods are shown in the appendix to this contract. And shall be deemed to be part of this Agreement. According to the work attached to the contract, the message is that the planting period of 76 trees per acre of 1,000 rai and have a note at the end. If the employer does not complete the tire in time. The contractor reserves the right to own rubber varieties at the price of 15 baht per contract, which means that the contract is to achieve the rubber plantation of the amount specified in the contract in time to completion is important to both. The plaintiff made a rubber plantation. Weed kill ... The plaintiff agreed to supply luggage, tools, fertilizers, pesticides. And other materials. Used to maintain the rubber plantation. It will also provide workers. Plaintiff's management of the plaintiff. The control over the employee is the essence of the employment contract. The relationship between the plaintiff and the company is not a labor contract. It is a service which is subject to VAT.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3648 - 3808/2559.

                   Before the termination of the defendant filed a request to amend the terms of employment, the notice of the factors that cause the defendant to suffer losses. Is the cost of labor Both the wages and benefits are very high for the union, but the negotiations can not agree until the strike and shut down. Subsequently, the defendant entered into an agreement on the conditions of employment with the union, R. Because the defendant has an order to open the job. Even though the labor unions have reduced their claims, the monetary benefits remain unresolved. Expenses are rising almost every year, regardless of whether the defendant loses or gains, namely salary, wages and other benefits of the employee. Before the dismissal, the defendant volunteered to resign. Early retirement plan There are not enough workers to join the program. The defendant is required to terminate only the regular employee does not terminate the annual employee because the employee does not have a bonus year. No wage adjustment The termination of a regular employee is a criterion for consideration in a non-discriminatory manner. Shows that the defendant focused on reducing labor costs. It is inevitable that the business of the defendant. It does not appear that the defendant libel dismissed the plaintiffs one hundred and sixty. It is not an unfair dismissal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3533/2559.

             The plaintiff sued by the defendant or defendant found guilty. Breach of contract Wrong agreement on employment conditions. Claim damages And in the indictment 2 to 4, the plaintiff described the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and stated the defendant's performance. The plaintiff contracted the defendant employed as an assistant manager of the Saraburi branch. Assists in the management and operation of branch managers. It is responsible for the operation of all branches of the system and must comply with the rules and regulations of the plaintiff. The plaintiff authorized the defendant to oversee the auction of property plaintiff's debt at the law enforcement office in Lopburi. But the defendant did not time the auction. Enforcement Officer Enforcement Officer auctioned the land and buildings of the plaintiff debtors at a price lower than the price that the plaintiff determined to approve the sale. This is done by negligence and is not suitable for the performance of the duties of the employee properly. The plaintiff was damaged. The plaintiff's indictment is a lawsuit based on the contract of employment as the main charge and plea that relied on the principal. The lecture sued the appointment of a fact-finding committee and was conducted. Act of infringement of officials in 1996 was a lecture on the case. When there is no law enforcing the age limit on the violation of the contract of employment. The age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, since the date the plaintiff has the right to demand is the date the defendant committed a labor violation. The lawsuit filed not more than 10 years, the plaintiff did not terminate. Before the auction about 3 to 4 days, the defendant was authorized to oversee the auction of land and buildings of the plaintiff debtors. The rules of the plaintiff's enforcement of the plaintiff's order to go before the auction. And the auction before the price and opposition opponents. The regulations governing the execution of the plaintiff's claim that the fighters must find a higher price or to buy themselves. This auction is an important time that the defendant must go to care and prepare by checking the case and the way to go to the law enforcement office in Lop Buri advance. The defendant had enough time to prepare. The defendant to the defendant was not guilty of the defendant who did not prepare the protection before the can be done. It is not a force majeure, which will cause the defendant to be released from liability for breach of contract. Defendant is liable to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1486/2559.

        The plaintiff filed a petition for a refund of the tax amount corresponding to the amount of withholding tax for the funds paid by the provident fund. The claim in the claim for tax refund. The plaintiff entered the retirement program early, but the money paid from the fund to the total tax calculation. Indicates that the plaintiff intended to request a tax refund for the funds paid from the provident fund. Non-deductible withholding tax under the labor law, as the defendant appealed. Even according to the plaintiff's claim, the tax refund is greater than the amount of the claim. But it is a lawsuit by calculating the amount of tax that the plaintiff has the right to return. The case is not a new issue. The plaintiff has the power to sue and like to claim a refund of the right amount. Announces 2007 Early Retirement Plan for Employees to Leave Before Their 60th Birthday, Voluntarily Is a part of the retirement criteria. In addition to the original retirement at the age of 60 years, the plaintiff exercised the rights under this announcement, although the time has not yet been amended. However, it can be considered as a retirement by leaving the job at the end of the working time in accordance with the written employment contract. When leaving the plaintiff is not less than 55 years old, the plaintiff is a member of the provident fund for not less than 5 years, it must be based on the principle that the plaintiff's income from the provident fund is exempt from income tax. Individual

Judgment of the Supreme Court 882/2559.

           Cause the defendant to terminate the plaintiff because the plaintiff was ordered by the Central Bankruptcy Court. According to the regulation of the defendant that the employees for the sale of 2541 Article 37.2 that a defendant may need to leave the employee if the employee has a bad debt and the defendant has the right to terminate. Hire by paying legal compensation. The person who was ordered by the court to be a defendant must be a person with insolvent debt, so the plaintiff will be named as a person who has broken into the meaning of the regulations. The plaintiff acts as a life insurance agent who must be trusted or trusted by the insured. If the insured person or a person who will enter into a life insurance agreement with the defendant knows that the plaintiff is strictly protected, it would result in the person does not trust the business of the defendant, the first defendant to dismiss the plaintiff has. Justified It is not an unfair dismissal. The plaintiff claims that the debt that the plaintiff sued as a bankruptcy case is the debt that the plaintiff and the plaintiff breached the overdraft agreement with the bank A. Later, the bank transferred the claim to the asset management company. The director of the defendant is a director of the bank and the asset management company that indicates that the defendant knows that the plaintiff has a liability before the defendant. Jatro works there. When a bank and asset management company against a defendant are separate entities. It can not be considered that the defendant knows that the plaintiff has a liability while the defendant to the plaintiff to work. And the plaintiff claimed that the defendant is not the case that the plaintiff has a debt to pay off the case. It is the understanding of the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15022/2558.

             Although the court will order the inclusion of the verdict between the plaintiff's 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th and 15th, with the plaintiffs, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 13th and 16th, both enacted and issued Enforcement Officers. Same issue. Each plaintiff's right to claim is the right of the plaintiff's employment contract. It is exclusive. The plaintiff is not a joint creditors. The 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th and 15th plaintiffs pledged money to third party claims. And notify the Enforcement Officer that the money received by the third party notified. It is a separate case. When the plaintiff's third, fourth, 7th, 8th, 13th and 16th do not file an application for their average debt under Section 270 of the Civil Code. Section 252, Section 31, plaintiffs, third, fourth, seventh, thirtieth, thirteenth, and sixteenth, shall not be entitled to receive an average amount of such sum. The Enforcement Officer account and pay the plaintiffs the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th and 15th so like it.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13244/2558.

             The Labor Protection Act, BE 2541, Section 17, paragraph two, requires the termination of the contract at least one round of payment. When an employer agrees to a prior notice, it will do so. Not against the law. The agreement that if the defendant has to terminate the 8 months before the 8th defendant announced the termination of employment on November 28, 2008 to take effect on December 1, 2008 is an advance notice of termination just two days of the plaintiff. Therefore, the right to receive wages instead of advance notice is equal to the final wage rate of 2 months 28 days, although the plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation for unfair dismissal. However, in this case, the Central Labor Court set up damages for breach of labor contract, claiming that the defendant was 8 years old. 11 dismissal of the plaintiff without reasonable cause, which is unfair dismissal. Unlawful This is the same reason as the unfair dismissal of the Central Labor Court to determine the damages to the plaintiff, and thus the duplication of damages on the basis of the same is not like. Calculation of compensation and wages instead of advance notice, based on the final rate paid in Singapore dollars. The compensation for unfair dismissal is based on the compensation paid to the plaintiff for consideration. The price of the plane ticket to the plaintiff is attested that the price is in Singapore dollars. The Central Labor Court's decision to pay in Singapore dollars, with the exchange rate at the place and time spent under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 196, paragraph two, to prevent the advantage or disadvantage of fluctuations in exchange rates. To make it fair to the couple. Judgment of the Central Labor Court in this section.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13163/2558.

           The legal relationship that is a labor contract is in accordance with the provisions of Section 575 and the Labor Protection Act 1998 Section 5 is the employer hired the other party to work for. Employers have the power to force employees to comply with work orders and regulations. When it does not appear that the plaintiff is responsible for the job, what is the formal way? No need to work every day. It shows that the plaintiff is not under the control of the management of the defendant, except the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff is not an employee of the defendant. It does not work for the defendant and is not subject to the rules governing the work and the command of the normal line of defense. The plaintiff's work in the defendant's company to support his father's work is a personal relationship and not considered as hiring the plaintiff instead of the defendant. So do not bind the defendant, which is a separate entity.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10157/2558.

            Defendant 1 is responsible for receiving money. Issue receipt Get paid Receipt number and amount in cash register Subsequent defendant 1 misappropriated the rent of the plaintiff, the defendant is the second defendant, the third defendant is the fourth defendant property is the head of the office after the second defendant. The plaintiff's complaint that the plaintiff hired the defendant to the second to fifth. And assigned to oversee the collection of money and property of the plaintiff, but abandoned as a result of the defendant to misappropriation of the plaintiff.The performance of the defendant 2 to 5 is severely impaired and negligence in accordance with the rules of the plaintiff, which is the condition of employment under the contract to hire a defendant 2 to 5, it is obliged to pay damages to the plaintiff under the contract as a contract. The supervisor of the defendant is a lawsuit against the defendant 2 to 5, both the infringement and the contract.

          There is no law on the age of the contract specifically for the 10 years under Section 193/30, the defendant misappropriated the money in August 1999. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit on June 27, 2007 plaintiff sued. The breach of labor contract does not expire. Defendants 2 and 5 do not comply with the regulations, not assigned to the staff and the payee is different from each other. The work will not be paid by the customer. The receipt of the receipt must be checked, so that the receipt of the receipt is false.

          Defendants 2 to 5 are responsible for other tasks. There is no direct control over money. The plaintiff's department, which has the duty to investigate directly, is still unable to detect the abnormality. The defendants 2 to 5 can not strictly follow the regulations, so it is just a normal negligence. The plaintiff sued the defendant 2 to 5, only liability in the case of serious negligence. No liability for negligence with the defendant 2 to 5 is not liable for damages to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9770/2558.

          After the employment ended with the resignation, the defendant has not issued a work permit to the plaintiff as requested. Plaintiffs like to receive a statement that they have worked for a long time, and the work that is the work of the defendant, according to Section 585 of the Labor Court, Section 2, the defendant, the defendant returned a 2,000 baht. Interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of resignation until the payment to the plaintiff. Not match the content of the decision to pay interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum as filed by the plaintiff on December 7, 2009, the defendant is obliged to return the plaintiff's insurance within 7 days from the date. Such resignation. If the defendant does not return the pledge of work to the plaintiff within the day, it must pay interest during the default period of 15 percent per annum under the Protection Act. Section 9, paragraph 1, and Section 10, paragraph two, in the absence of any party to the appeal, but shall be subject to the public order of the Supreme Court. Section 142 (5), 246 of the Civil and Commercial Code, established Labor Court and Labor Court, Section 253, Section 31, it is appropriate to defend the defendant. Work with interest at 15% per annum from 15 December 2009 until the payment to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9468/2558.

           The plaintiff sued the defendant, the employee liable damages to the plaintiff. The employer is responsible for the wrongful acts. Violates the plaintiff's order To approve loans to overdue debtors over fraud. The plaintiff was damaged. The plaintiff sued the defendant liable for the violation of the 1 year since the date of the damage to know the breach and know the person to use the compensation or after 10 years from the date of the violation. Section 448, paragraph one, and the base of duty under labor contract. The right to demand under the labor contract is not age specific, so it is 10 years under Section 193/30, with age starting from the moment that may force claims can go on, according to Section 193/12 facts. The defendant violated the plaintiff and the labor contract violation between June 7, 1991 to January 13, 1995, the date of the lawsuit filed February 1, 2011 more than 10 years. The plaintiff sued for infringement of both age-old and a breach of the employment contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6721/2558.

           The plaintiff resigned from the job before the age of 60 years, resulting in the labor contract between the plaintiff and the defendant ended. But when the same day the resignation takes effect. The plaintiff and the defendant made a contract to hire a new employment contract, the plaintiff has the status of an employee of the defendant. When the defendant is a state enterprise. The plaintiff is the employee in the sense. Standard qualifications for directors and state enterprise employees, 1975. The expiration of the plaintiff's position shall be in accordance with the instructions and procedures of the employees of the defendant and the Act.

            Employee Defendant's Clause 17.1 stipulates that employees who are 60 years of age Exit from office on October 1 of the year in which the employee is 60 years old and to receive the compensation as determined by the defendant. Section 9 (2), Section 11, Paragraph 1 (3) and Paragraph 2, provides for the termination of office of an employee who is 60 years old. Fiscal year according to the law of the budget method of the year that the employee is 60 years old, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an executive contract with a deadline of 2. 8 months, which ends on October 1, 2006, which is the date of the plaintiff's age is 60 years old, according to the employee's rules of the defendant Article 17.1, which falls under the standard qualifications for directors and state enterprise employees in 1975. Section 9 (2), Section 11, Paragraph 1 (3) and Paragraph 2 shall show the true intent of the parties that the employment contract ends because the plaintiff retires.

         Therefore, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to leave the job from October 1, 2006 by virtue of the manual and procedures for the employees of the defendant and the standard qualifications for directors and state enterprise employees, Section 2518 paragraph 1 (3) In case the plaintiff vacated due to retirement according to the employee's regulations and the defendant complied with the results of the law.

            The plaintiff's position is not due to the defendant, the employer does not allow the plaintiff to work. Even the defendant to the plaintiff can not continue to work because the plaintiff lack the legal qualifications to be employees or employees of the defendant. The termination of employment under Section 59 paragraph two of the Notification of the State Enterprise Labor Relations Commission regarding minimum standards of employment in state enterprises, dated 31 May 2006, the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6719/2558.

          Labor Court Region 4 Judge the second defendant to accept the plaintiff to work in the position and the rate of employment is not lower than the original because the defendant 2 dismissal of the plaintiff by unfair. Even though it is not scheduled to be counted as a continuation of the work, the result of the case is that the employee is ordered to return to work in the same position before the dismissal. The age of employment is an element that gives an employee the right to a certain amount of labor protection. The termination of employment continues to mean that the employee loses his or her right to work due to age of employment. Section 49 of the Labor Law Establishing the Labor Court and the Labor Court Procedure BE 2522 (1979), counting the age of the continuation of work, is merely a remedy for the right of an existing employee to lose the job. Unfair dismissal It must be counted from the age of the original job, not the start of the new job after the second defendant to the plaintiff to work. But it will count from the date of termination until the date the defendant plaintiff returned to work as a working age because it was not during the plaintiff did not work for the second defendant to count on the new job to the age of the work. Calculate the day before termination only.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3129/2558.

           The plaintiff's intention to quit the job to the defendant on April 7, 2009, effective on May 10, 2009, despite the intention to terminate the contract. The employer or employee has the right to express his or her intentions without the consent of the other. However, during the employment contract, employers and employees continue to have legal relationships until the employment contract is terminated. When the plaintiff deliberately made the defendant to 1 damage and negligence caused the defendant to be severely damaged, the defendant was entitled to terminate the plaintiff's employment on April 24, 2009 before the date of resignation, the defendant is entitled to exercise. The plaintiff's leave before the due date, the plaintiff's intention to resign in any way.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2507/2558.

           The defendant's actions will be a breach of employment contract or agent and violation of the plaintiff. It does not appear that under the labor contract between the plaintiff and the defendant has determined the defendant to do this to a certain number. And the defendant violated the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not sue the defendant for damages in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 438, paragraph one, however, even if the plaintiff sued the money under the purchase agreement from the limited partnership and the managing partner. The plaintiff's customers who buy over the credit limit as approved by the defendant, and the court has a verdict of allowing the person to pay the plaintiff. The defendant was not sued in the civil suit. Will bring the amount of debt as a basis for calculating the defendant's liability. Because of the uncertainty that the plaintiff will execute the plaintiff's lawsuit within 10 years to pay the debt or not. Which is the future? As a result of the lawsuit, The debt can not be determined by the course is not subject to the rules. Bankruptcy Act, 1940, Section 9 (3), the plaintiff has no right to bring such debt to the defendant to bankruptcy.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1306/2558.

           The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff to pay damages and breach of labor contracts on the basis of the violation of the employer and employee about the employment contract. The red case number 2093/2558 of Ubon Ratchathani. Defendant is a plaintiff sued and A in the cause of breach of contract for fertilizer. In this case, even though it is based on the sale of fertilizer dispute the same. But it is the responsibility of the defendant in each case. It is not against the law.

           However, the Ubon Ratchathani Provincial Court has a verdict and the plaintiff's liability to the plaintiff in the case because the breach of the contract for fertilizer, the refund of the purchase of fertilizer in the amount of 3,147,950 baht to the defendant is the case. From the plaintiff's corruption. Willfully not comply with the rules of the defendant caused serious damage to the defendant and negligence in the cause of serious damage to the defendant. The breach of labor contracts and violations against the defendant. The plaintiff is responsible for damages to the defendant as the plaintiff is the manager of the defendant who is purchasing fertilizer under the contract of sale of the fertilizer itself, and the board of the defendant ordered to pay to the A and A. money. 5,050,000 baht and a. And a. Fertilizer to the defendant for some 2,002,050 baht, which is outstanding in the amount of 3,047,950 baht, as determined by the Labor Court of Region 3, the plaintiff is liable for damages. The compensation part as a counterclaim in the case.

         If the defendant has been indemnified in the said part of the A and A. According to the verdict of the Ubon Ratchathani court. It would make the liability of the plaintiff to defend the defendant by the counterclaim in this case reduced with just that. So if the defendant forced to pay the debt in the case of red number 2093/2558 of the Ubon Ratchathani Provincial Court in return to the defendant amount of 3,047,950 amount. To be deducted from the plaintiff's liability to pay the debt.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 19436/2557.

            The plaintiff is an employee of the company. Later, the company sold Department of Divercye to the defendant that the contract between the plaintiff and the company ended without cause of the plaintiff's company to pay. Benefit Upon leaving the office before the position of manager and the contributions paid by the company to the provident fund, the plaintiff and the plaintiff under the plaintiff's employment agreement between the plaintiff and the two companies are the property of the plaintiff. Received when leaving the employment of the company. When the plaintiff to work as an employee of the defendant.

         The plaintiff ordered the company to transfer the benefits when leaving the office before the manager to the defendant and the transfer of contributions together with the interest paid by the company under the contract to the defendant. 2 (the Defendant's Fund and the Employee of the 1st Defendant) to use the money to calculate the benefits when the plaintiff quit. It is not the transfer of assets in both amounts to the defendant's first two funds are still the property of the plaintiff. When the defendant to terminate the plaintiff to terminate the first defendant to pay benefits when leaving the job before the manager to the plaintiff.

           Defendant 3, the fund manager of the defendant is not liable to refund this amount to the plaintiff. The contributions paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff under the employment contract and the plaintiff ordered the company to transfer to the defendant fund 2 is the plaintiff's money paid into the defendant's fund 2 is not paid to the defendant to pay the defendant. The amount of money is in the plaintiff's employer. Not the contribution of the first defendant, the employer. When the defendant to terminate the third defendant, the plaintiff has the obligation to pay the plaintiff to pay the plaintiff, even if the third defendant to return the money to the defendant to the third defendant did not release the third defendant.

            Defendant Fund 2 was registered as a separate entity from the defendant in accordance with the Provident Fund Act, 1987. Section 7 The fund must be registered with the Provident Fund. The registered defendant to pay contributions and contributions to pay whether the pay and return to the employer or not, the defendant is no obligation to pay. Payment plus interest to the plaintiff.

           The Provident Fund Act, BE 2530, Section 23, paragraph one, which is applicable at the time of this case, provides that: "When the employee terminates the membership due to another reason, which is not a fund to quit. The fund manager must pay the fund to the employee in accordance with the rules and procedures prescribed in the fund regulations. To pay ... "Defendant 3, the fund manager of the defendant, so it must be accompanied by contributions to the plaintiff ordered the company to transfer to the defendant fund 2 from the defendant fund to pay the plaintiff. When the plaintiff has not received the debt, the defendant is not released from the debt. The defendant did not pay this amount of money and the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of membership in accordance with the provisions of the second defendant fund, the defendant was defaulted, which must pay interest between the default. The payment of funds from the two defendants and the third defendant as a fund manager, the defendant must pay out of the second defendant to the plaintiff's indemnity debt. Judgment is effective between the plaintiff and the defendant, who has not appealed with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 245 (1) Compulsory Labor Court and Labor Court Procedure, Section 255, Section 31

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15186 - 15192/2557.

            Temporary Employee Agreement states that the first defendant contracted the plaintiff's employment contract for the construction of a jetty for a second defendant contracted by a contractor from the defendant, although the contract of temporary employment would not be sealed by the defendant. The law does not force labor contracts to be made in writing or as evidence. When there are some construction work in the project, and the defendant has a letter demanding that the second defendant pay the construction costs. If the seven plaintiffs work in that section. It shows that the defendant took the work of the seven plaintiffs to work. This circumstance is that the contract of the plaintiff's seven acts as a representative of the defendant under Section 797, the defendant is one who agrees to accept the seven plaintiffs to work. Pay the employer to pay. Section 5 The defendant must pay the plaintiff seven wages under Section 70 and Section 12, paragraph one, provided that the employer is the subcontractor to the subcontractor. The next up if there is a whole line up to the initial contractor is jointly liable to the subcontractor, the employer on the wages. When the second defendant agreed to work on the construction of a bridge to the subdistrict administrative organization Thep Krasatriang, the employer, the second defendant, who agreed to undertake all or part of the construction work until the completion of the benefits. The employer and the defendant is a contractor to pay the labor with a concrete casting and the second defendant to get some work. The work is the responsibility of the defendant, 2 for the employer, the second defendant is a first class contractor and the first defendant as a subcontractor as defined in Section 5, so if the seven plaintiffs to work then the defendant. No. 1 to pay the plaintiff to the seven defendants, the two are jointly liable to the defendant in the payment of wages under Section 12 paragraph one and the right to pay. Premium wages paid to the plaintiff by the defendant to seven nights under Section 12 Paragraph 1.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 14810/2557.

            The text of the request for a proposal to the Managing Director of the defendant to obtain the defendant's offer. Accept advance payment for annual holidays. Will not be sued to claim lawsuits or other compensation from the defendant. In case of making a statement to meet the defendant, the offer. The defendant prepared the plaintiff's signature as a response to the plaintiff. The plaintiff signed the signature of his signature. Has been dated in the book and before being presented to the Managing Director of the defendant. As a result of the defendant's offer. The offer of the defendant is the end of the commitment. Do not make a compromise agreement. It is not about withdrawing the intention to terminate the compromise agreement.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13103/2557.

          On August 15, 1989, the plaintiff ordered the 388/2532 to appoint the defendant to the chairman of the investigation into the case of dairy products of the plaintiff lost. Defendant is obliged to comply with the provisions of the plaintiff's order to complete the investigation within 60 days from the date of the Chairman of the inquiry committee to recognize the commission. If the investigation has not been completed, the extension of the investigation period from the appointed investigator shall be extended not more than 30 days, but the case must be terminated. And the Investigative Committee shall submit the result of the investigation to the person authorized to appoint the Investigative Committee, together with the facts and the opinion, which shall state that the person who is directly liable and who is jointly liable. Defendant summed up the results of the investigation of the plaintiff's proposed director on May 4, 2537, after a four-year appointment, without appearing to request an extension of the investigation period. And the defendant did not specify who is directly responsible. It does not comply with the obligations of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's director received a summary of the results of further investigation of the defendant, it is evident that the defendant served a delay. This is a violation of the duties of the Chairman of the Investigative Committee. It must be considered that the defendant's wrongful death occurred on May 4, 2537, which is the time that the plaintiff may enforce claims under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/12, the plaintiff's claim that the defendant has a basis. The defendant's duty as chairman of the investigation committee. The breach of employment contract, which is not law-specific, so it is 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, the plaintiff sued the defendant on February 21, 2006 expired for 10 years, the plaintiff's case expires.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6270/2557.

          The plaintiff sued the red case No. 6323/2548 of the Central Labor Court. To request the Labor Inspectorate to revoke the plaintiff's reimbursement of work insurance or damage insurance for employees (defendant 1 in this case). The plaintiff is unable to provide any other person to take responsibility from the defendant. The supervisor has never informed the defendant to either refrain from running errands or proceed to search or clarify the documents claiming lost. And it can not be determined that the documents that the plaintiff claimed was lost is what documents the client how much money. The fact is that the defendant did not claim that the 1st offense as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no right to claim damages from the defendant that the defendant is required to return the plaintiff to a plaintiff binding the plaintiff, the parties to the plaintiff under Section 1 (11), Section 145 paragraph one of the Civil Code. Establishment of Labor Court and Labor Court Procedure, 1979, Section 31 that the defendant is not guilty and the plaintiff has no right to claim damages from the defendant since the date the Central Labor Court has sentenced to. The sentence was changed to a suspension or loss, if any. This case, the plaintiff sued for the breach of labor contract, claiming that the defendant was resigned to failure and delivered the accountability to the new account manager. It does not take care of the documents of the debtor, resulting in many documents lost, which is the same reason as the Central Labor Court in the red case No. 6323/2548, although the case has not reached the end, but the plaintiff was bound by the judgment. It must be considered that the defendant did not commit a crime and the plaintiff has no right to claim damages from the defendant, the first and second defendants (the guarantor) is not liable for damages to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2818/2557.

            The share agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant Clause 4 states that the parties agree to share the benefits of half of the net profit after deduction of expenses on the last day of each month. The defendant will pay a minimum of 35,000 baht per month to the plaintiff by the 15th of each month as a guarantee of profits as agreed for a period of 28 months and Clause 6 states that if the defendant breached clause 4 in any month. It's The outstanding amount will be carried forward to the next month plus interest at the rate of 2%. If the defendant fails to pay the insurance for 3 consecutive months, the contract will result in the share immediately. The plaintiff's money received from the defendant each month is characterized by profit sharing and profit insurance. This is an important condition for the termination of the contract. It does not look like a payroll. Labor Protection Act BE 2541, Section 5, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is not an employer and employee.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2081/2557.

           Even the plaintiff, which is a state enterprise ordered the defendants 2 and 3 jointly liable to defendant 1 indemnify the plaintiff. But when the defendant 2 and 3 do not indemnify the order. The plaintiff sued the defendants 2 and 3, claiming that the defendants 2 and 3, the defendant violated the duty of violation and breach of employment contract under the Civil and Commercial Code to the plaintiff. It is a civil liability for the misconduct and breach of contract. The plaintiff's order to enforce compliance. Acting Administrative Service Act 1996, which requires the defendant's second and third defendants to bring evidence to show the court to prove their actions. The plaintiff's testimony is only evidence in the court case. The plaintiff sued without a second and third defendants to investigate the defendant did not cause the plaintiff's right to bring the case filed with the Central Labor Court. Plaintiff sued The plaintiff sued the defendant 2 and 3, and the violation of the contract of employment as a cause for the defendant to dishonor the money of the plaintiff. The second and third defendants are liable for both breach of contract and breach of labor contract. The law does not stipulate the age of the violation of employment contracts, so it is 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1306/2557.

             Agreement # 5 between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant has to hire workers from the subcontractors at the rate of not more than 25% of the number of defendants in that agency. If there is a need for the defendant to hire more than 30% of the number of defendants in that agency. The terms of the employment or other benefits of the defendant or employee according to the meaning of the word. "Employment Agreement" and "Employment Conditions" under Labor Relations Act BE 2518, Section 5, because if the defendant employs subcontracted laborers without the terms of Article 5, the defendant shall employ. Subcontractor The proportion of employees under the contract of the defendant less and less with no restrictions. It will affect the employee under the direct contract of the defendant on wages and welfare to stop with no further development. Agreement No. 5 entered into force on the terms of employment between the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, the defendant must comply.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 11837 - 11838/2056

             Replacement Act of 1994, Section 20, paragraph one, stipulates that the person entitled to receive compensation from the employer is (3) a child under 18 years of age, except when the age of 18 years, but also study in (4) Children of 18 years of age and disabled or mentally ill, who are in the custody of an employee before the employee, shall be entitled to receive the following allowance. Users dead or missing Provisions that hold age and disability are important criteria for being eligible for compensation. It does not prescribe that a child is lawfully a child under Section 20 paragraph one (3) (4), so it must be considered a real child.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 11096/2056.

            The plaintiff is an employee of the defendant in the position of general manager. Responsible for marketing, sales and customer relations. At the same time, the plaintiff to serve as director of the company A. The same purpose and business competition with the defendant A. The company will have to provide services to the same customer with the defendant will affect the individual. The defendant's 1st defendant, the plaintiff, the defendant is a commercial antagonist of the defendant, the employer. And intentionally cause the employer to be damaged by the plaintiff does not promote the trade of the defendant, the two defendants terminate the plaintiff without compensation for compensation. Section 119 (2) of the Labor Protection Act. (2) The plaintiff does not fulfill the duty to perform correctly and honestly. Defendants both dismissed without notice in advance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 583, and the dismissal is justified. Not unfair dismissal

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4756/2056.

         On November 10, 2005, the plaintiff filed a resignation from the employee of the defendant, indicating that the dismissal of employees on December 1, 2005 is intended to terminate the employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. Intention to terminate the contract of the plaintiff from the date of submission of the resignation letter to the defendant, and will not be withdrawn under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 386, paragraph two, the resignation is a procedure and internal procedures of the defendant. No change in the plaintiff's intent to terminate the contract. The labor contract between the plaintiff and the defendant ended on December 1, 2005, according to the plaintiff's resignation letter.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4267/2056.

          Defendant is an employee of the plaintiff. Defendant Advocate Advocate to prosecute as plaintiff's attorney. When the duty is completed, the receipt or payment to clear the advance payment. If not prosecuted or have money left to return to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the money the defendant borrowed to return the commitment of the labor contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, which is not a law specifically provided for a 10-year period under Section 193/30 is not the case. Reimbursement of the advance paid by the employer in advance under Section 193/34 (9)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2666/2556.

            Defendant has a letter dismissing the plaintiff, claiming that the plaintiff's fuel car fraud. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal order to the executive level supervisor in accordance with the regulations on the work of the defendant. During the appeals process, the plaintiff dismissed the plaintiff's written request for resignation from being an employee of the defendant with a voluntary basis and received Baht 100,000 from the defendant despite the plaintiff's resignation letter. (After the defendant has a letter of termination), the employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant ceased. However, according to the circumstances of the case and the behavior of the plaintiff agreed to receive the defendant's money from the defendant 100,000 baht later without any objections to objections. The plaintiff's consent to the defendant to terminate the dismissal claim that the plaintiff's fuel car fraud. The plaintiff does not wish to claim a termination anymore. The plaintiff has no right to bring lawsuit.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2470/2556.

          Considering whether a contract is a contract of employment or employment, the employee must consider the facts of the employer's work, so that the employee will know the intent of the contract, whether the party knowingly signs a labor contract or a contract of employment. Although the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to advertise the details of the success of the ads to the newspaper of the defendant to the target that the plaintiffs must find the ads from outside to print the ads. It is worth not less than 25 million and 32 million baht within 10 months and 12 months, but in practice, when the plaintiffs can not find the target. Defendant is leniency to the plaintiff. They also pay salaries and commission to the contract. Upon termination of the contract, the defendant also contracted the plaintiff with the other. The plaintiff's intent to contract the plaintiff's advertising is not focused on the success of the employment is important.

          Defendant to the plaintiff is the director of advertising and give the employee identification card to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's position in advertising. The plaintiff has the power to punish the offender on behalf of the defendant. Representation of the power of the defendant against the plaintiff. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is the labor.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4970/2552.

  The defendant's primary purpose is to engage in the design and construction of a gas pipeline construction contractor, as a consultant in the gas pipeline project, to the defendant, the plaintiff to hire engineers to send the plaintiff to work on the project of the company. Defendant is the payer to work at the plaintiff to work at the company. The payment of compensation under the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The normal working time of the plaintiff is the wage. The plaintiff must comply with the order and command of the company is a case where the defendant delegated some of his supervisor to the company to use the defendant during the plaintiff to work on the orders of the defendant to work. Successfully completed the contract between the defendant and the company. When the design was completed, the company has a letter to the defendant that the plaintiff's performance ended. In case the company notified the plaintiff to return the defendant. The power to terminate the plaintiff remains the defendant. The defendant did not have the power to order the plaintiff, but not. The plaintiff is an employee of the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7717/2551.

      If the employer does not pay compensation under The Employee Protection Act, 1998, Section 118, paragraph three, of the contract between the employer and the employee shall be in accordance with Section 118, paragraph four, which shall be a contract of employment in a specific project not in the normal course of business or trade. The employer must have a certain start and end date for the job. In occasional events where the schedule is terminated or the success of a job or in a seasonal job and hired at the time of the season. The work must be completed in no more than two years. Employers and employers have signed contracts since the beginning of employment.

Section 5: Compensation means the money paid by the employer to the employee upon termination of employment. In addition to other types of payments that employers pay to employees. The defendant to the plaintiff before the expiration of the period of 12 months under the contract is not compensation.

The contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was a contract with a fixed term. Of course, between April 14, 2000 to April 13, 2001, but by the time of April 13, 2001, the defendant did not terminate the plaintiff. The plaintiff continued to work. And also pay the plaintiff. It must be considered a new contract with the same contract of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 581 became a contract with no term of employment. When the defendant terminates the plaintiff, the defendant must notify the plaintiff in advance. On or before the pay is due. To make a termination of the contract when the next pay period.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7699/2551.

The plaintiff has the obligation to work. If not, how does it work? This is the exercise of the power of the work of the e. True, only work independently to achieve the success of the job. And in that contract, the plaintiff pay the service to the Mon. Monthly pay back to work throughout the period of work for the plaintiff. Overtime Holiday Overtime Holiday work Yes, the plaintiff paid to pay for the success of the work that is a contract of employment, not the last part of the contract, it is noted that, in addition to The driver of the car also has a case where he must perform other tasks as plaintiffs assigned. It can be seen that the compensation for work is not just for the success of the work done. Is driving only The contract is between the plaintiff and the contractor is not a contract of employment, not a contract of employment, as the plaintiff appealed.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6098/2551.

The Central Labor Court hears the facts and decides. The plaintiff as the manager of the car department received a dispute over the control of the car from the control department. The plaintiff has the duty to send the relevant documents to the agency of the defendant, the employer, to claim the spare parts with the guarantee company within a reasonable time. But the plaintiff does not. The plaintiff is defective for the duty not to comply with the lawful order of the employer and the act is not appropriate to perform their duties properly and honestly. Defendant, the employer has the right to terminate the plaintiff without notice in advance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 583, which is the defendant's defense.

Considering that dismissal is not justified. Establishment of the Labor Court Section 49, the court must consider the cause of the actual dismissal of the employer reasonable cause. The reason for termination may not be the grounds of the defendant's statement or the termination notice specified in Section 17, paragraph three of the Labor Protection Act, and in a separate case. Consider termination must be announced in advance. The court has the power to consider the cause of termination that the defendant dismissed the plaintiff because of why and fair or not. The Central Labor Court put forward the notice on the rules of working time of the Office of the notice of repair of documents 3 and the notice of the change of working time of the department of repair documents. The defendant dismissed the plaintiff as a result of the defendant was not satisfied that the defendant changed the normal working time of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff argued against and filed a complaint with the labor inspector, so that the defendant can not change the working time of the plaintiff. It is not a dismissal because the plaintiff acted negligently or negligently as the defendant fought. The ruling of the Central Labor Court is lawful.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4203/2551.

The plaintiff used the sharp edge of the car, which was parked in the parking lot. The plaintiff's actions are destroying the property of another person in the defendant company. According to the regulations on the work of the defendant is a serious offense to terminate employment. Obviously, in addition to the defendant, the defendant intends not to destroy the assets belonging to the defendant, but also to the property of another person in the defendant company is protected the same as the defendant's property. If a bully destroys the company in the defendant. Another employee of the defendant is not working normally. Especially in the parking lot, where the employee of the defendant must park his car. Can not take care of the defendant at all times. It should be taken care of by a special defendant to see that the defendant installed CCTV cameras to check for evidence if the offense occurred. When considering the property being used as a car, which is the price and the employee must use to travel to work premises where the parking area of ​​the defendant company. And the use of pointed sharp cars of other people is an act of ignorance in the suffering of others. Do not despise it. The behavior of the plaintiff is considered a serious offense in itself. The defendant shall terminate the plaintiff without notice in advance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 583 without compensation. The Labor Protection Act, BE 2541 (1998), Section 119 (4), is not an unfair dismissal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2035/2551.

When the plaintiff is aware that the defendant ordered the company to record time at the executive level to manage the business to the company, which is a mandate to control the operation of the lawful and not follow. The plaintiff's actions are deliberately contrary to the order of the lawful employer. The employer shall be dismissed without notice or to claim damages under Section 583 and the Labor Protection Act 1998, Section 17, paragraph five, the plaintiff is not entitled to be paid instead. Advance notice

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1605/2551.

Section 13 of the Labor Protection Act shall be applicable in the event of a change of employer, regardless of whether the employer is a person. Ordinary or juristic person Therefore, new employers must have the rights and obligations of existing employees. With the former employer comes in all respects. If the transfer of the employer to the new employer, the case must be with Section 577, which the former employer and the new employer will do when the employer agrees. And when the employee agrees to transfer the right, then the employee must. When it appears that during the plaintiff's work with the defendant, there is a requirement to work on retirement at the age of 65 years, then the defendant to transfer. The plaintiff to work with the second defendant has a mandatory retirement age at the age of 60 and the second defendant transferred the plaintiff to do. With the third defendant, the third defendant has the obligation to work retirement at the age of 60. The transfer of the plaintiff from the work with the defendant to work with the defendant 2 and 3 as a compliance with the law. Section 577, even if the plaintiff's retirement rights must be reduced. But when the transfer, the plaintiff agreed. The plaintiff must comply with the regulations on the work of the new employer. The plaintiff can not claim retirement at the age of 65 years, according to the regulations of the work of the defendant with the new employer. The third defendant dismissed the plaintiff is not terminated by the libel, but the dismissal of a reasonable. Adequate and sufficient It is not an unfair dismissal. Establishment of Labor Court and Labor Court Procedure Act, BE 2522 (1979), Section 49

Judgment of the Supreme Court 259-260

Employees serve as food waiters. During the drinking. The pickle of the drunk. It is only 5 minutes before the job is over, and the waitress is not responsible for any damage to the employer. Moreover, it does not appear that the employee is intoxicated or causes any damage to the employer. Also, it does not appear that the employer's customers have blamed the employee's performance. Therefore, it is not considered the employee violates the regulations on the work of the employer. However, it is the employer's intention to disobey the employer's orders. The employer is dismissed without notice, according to Section 583.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7398 - 7399/2551.

According to the State Enterprise Labor Relations Act Definitions "State enterprise" means in particular: (1) a governmental organization under the law governing the establishment of a governmental organization; The law states that the establishment of the business. (2) a company or a juristic partnership which has been established by the ministry, bureau, ministry, ministry, ministry or ministry, When the Petroleum Authority of Thailand was privatized on October 1, 2001, the company was not a state enterprise under Section 6 (2) of the Act. The defendant company has a shareholder who is a ministry, department or department with equivalent status or state enterprise under Section 6 (1) not exceeding fifty percent. Therefore, the defendant company is not a state enterprise and is not subject to However, it will fall under the general labor law. The State Enterprise Labor Union, which is a union established under Act of State Labor Relations Relations The State Enterprise Labor Union will be on October 1, 2001 with the plaintiff is not protected under Section 24 of the Act. In addition, such unions have not been canceled because the registrar has words. Order to cancel under Section 66

From January 2002 to December 2002, the plaintiff did not reach the workplace at 8.00 am, which was a total of 35 times the normal working hours. The defendant issued a warning letter dated January 21, 2003. Later, on January 9, 2003, the plaintiff presented a contemptuous modality. Abuse and rude speech to the direct supervisors, the defendant issued a warning letter dated February 7, 2003, both documents were signed. The management of the staff Both books mention this as a reminder to improve morale. And also the plaintiff's offense. It has the same message. "So, in order for you to rectify and improve your conduct as an employee. The Company has punished you by issuing a warning letter to improve the conduct of the first. Please warn that if you violate the rules of the company by such offense. After that, from January 2003 to March 2003, the plaintiff repeatedly made a mistake by not reaching the office building and not working from 8.00 clock total of 13 times the defendant. A letter dated March 24, 2003, signed by W., also stated that the notice of repeated offense. When there is a statement of the plaintiff's offense in the matter, it also states that. Repeated offense warning. Both stated that the company will disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions of the work is not a message to punish the plaintiff by issuing a warning letter after the issue of this letter, the defendant issued a letter of dismissal from the employee. Repeating warnings It is not a warning, but a letter to the plaintiff that the plaintiff repeatedly commits the offense by the plaintiff violates the regulations on work and the employer has warned in writing, and the defendant is not required to pay compensation to the plaintiff. Section 119 (4) The plaintiff's actions are negligently disobeying the orders of the lawful employer, as the defendant can be dismissed, the employer can not be dismissed, must be notified in advance or the compensation instead. Section 583 of the Labor Protection Act Section 17 Workplace behavior. The violation of the order and regulations of the defendant is justified. Defendant will terminate the plaintiff. It is not an unfair dismissal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4203/2551.

The plaintiff used the sharp edge of the car, which was parked in the parking lot. The plaintiff's actions are destroying the property of another person in the defendant company. According to the regulations on the work of the defendant is a serious offense to terminate employment. When considering the regulations, it is clear that the defendant will not. To destroy the property belonging to the defendant, and also to the property of the person. In the defendant company, the same protection as the defendant's property. If a bully destroys the company in the defendant. Another employee of the defendant is not working normally. Especially in the parking lot, where the employee of the defendant must park his car. Can not take care of the defendant at all times. It should be taken care of by a special defendant to be seen that the defendant installed. CCTV cameras to check for evidence if the offense occurs. When considering the property being used as a car, it is a valuable asset. Employees are required to travel to work at the premises of the defendant's parking lot. And the use of pointed sharp cars of other people is not interested in the interest. Suffering of others Do not despise it. The plaintiff's behavior is considered to be a serious offense in the defendant to terminate the plaintiff without notice in advance under Section 583 does not pay compensation. The Labor Protection Act, BE 2541 (1998), Section 119 (4), is not an unfair dismissal. Establishment of Labor Court and Labor Court Procedure, BE 2522, Section 259, Section 49, the plaintiff appealed. The plaintiff admitted that the real offense and the damages to Mr. Sor. And the plaintiff has good deeds before. Should be taken as a justification for the plaintiff's opportunity to see that the plaintiff's dismissal of the plaintiff is in compliance with the provisions of the defendant, then there is no reason for the court to examine the discretion of the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3198 - 3279/2551.

The defendant has 1 order to the plaintiff eighty two. Working in Prachinburi to work at Paolo Hospital. Samut Prakarn Province Due to the defendant's entire food service contract between the defendant 1 and the defendant, the first defendant offered the eighty two to work in the other branches of the defendant in Samutprakan. And Bangkok It will be provided to the rent of 1,000 baht per month when the plaintiff's eighty-two do not choose and do not expressly wish the defendant to know the defendant, so it is necessary to order the plaintiffs eighty two to work at the plant. Paolo Samut Prakarn Province The position is not lower than the original. When the plaintiff's eighty-two have notified the defendant that he did not wish to go to another unit of the defendant and did not go to duty on the date of the defendant's first term, it is abandoning duty for three working days. Section 119 (5) of the Labor Protection Act and the abandonment of the work, the defendant will be dismissed without notice or advance. I was fried instead of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 583, and the dismissal with such cause is necessary and reasonable. It is not an unfair dismissal. Establishment of Labor Court and Labor Court Procedure Section 49. The first defendant dismissed the eighty two plaintiffs without compensation. Instead of advance notice and compensation for unfair dismissal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2035/2551.

When the plaintiff knows that the defendant ordered the company to record time in the executive level to go to the business management company, which is the order. In order to control the operation of the law, then do not follow. The plaintiff's actions are deliberately contrary to the order of the lawful employer. The employer shall be dismissed without notice or to claim damages under Section 583 and the Labor Protection Act, 1998, Section 17, paragraph five, the plaintiff is not entitled to receive compensation instead. Advance notice

Judgment of the Supreme Court 259-260

Despite the ruling on some disputes, the Central Labor Court has ruled in some cases. But when considering the ruling on the issues that set the issue together. There is a summary or a statement of facts in the case. The reason for the decision is by the way. The judgment is therefore lawful. Labor Court Settlement and Labor Court Procedure Formulation, Section 51, paragraph one

Employees serve as food waiters. During the drinking. The pickle of the drunk. It is only 5 minutes before the job is over, and the waitress is not responsible for any damage to the employer. It does not appear that the employee is intoxicated or causes any damage to the employer, nor does it appear that the employer's employer has blamed the employee for doing so. Therefore, it is not considered the employee violates the regulations on the work of the employer. But the brewing employees in the course of duty is considered to intentionally disobey the employer's order to dismiss the employer without having to notify the page according to Section 583

Employees will ask the employer to pay interest to the employee during the default. Seven per cent per year. For fairness, the Supreme Court will require employers to pay interest at the rate of compensation. Fifteen percent per annum from the filing date. Labor Court Settlement and Labor Court Procedure Section 52

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8587 - 8591/2550.

The five plaintiffs jointly gambling Hiroton on a regular day at noon time in the car park in the defendant's office. Police officers arrested the five plaintiffs with gambling equipment. When the plaintiff played five highs, the gambling in accordance with the end of the Gambling Act BE 2478, even playing outside the work. But playing within the defendant company. It is a violation of the rules governing the work of the defendant that prohibits gambling employees within the defendant's company. And gambling is the cause of strife. It can lead to other crimes. And the impact on the reputation of the defendant. Violation of the regulations on the work of the five plaintiffs is a serious case. The defendant terminated the five plaintiffs without notice. Do not pay compensation. And not an unfair dismissal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7313/2550.

He is the manager of the Northern Region of the company. H is responsible for the management of the company to produce products to customers with efficiency. The company has the same business with the company H. Established a headquarters in the factory of the company H. Unmarried wife of the wife. This is a commercial antagonism and it is a competitive business with HH who is an employer. Therefore, it is a violation of the law and the law is a serious case, the company hired to terminate the employment without compensation in accordance with. Section 119 (4) Labor Protection Act does not require advance notice under Section 583 and not unfair dismissal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5099/2550.

Even before the contract. Both defendants will enter into a contract. Forbid the plaintiff to work with others. But when the plaintiff objected to the contract. In the contract, it is stated that the terms of the contract. The plaintiff must not use or disclose the confidential information of the defendant, which is derived from the employee to another person strictly. Or act against the interests of the defendant, the message is not a contract that the plaintiff can not be cautious of the plaintiff's breach of contract. The agreement is not a result of the plaintiff to be burdened beyond the normal expectation of the plaintiff as claimed in the appeal. But the defendant to hire a plaintiff to work as a management consultant. Since the plaintiff had previously worked as a director. Even in the contract does not specify the message prohibiting the plaintiff to work with others. But when the message prohibits the plaintiff's actions against the interests of the company. The plaintiff is another employee in the position of director of education in schools that conduct the same business as the defendant, it is contrary to the interests of the defendant, and it is not appropriate to perform their duties. To be honest and honest. Both defendants terminate the plaintiff without notice. The plaintiff has no right to claim instead of advance notice. The defendant claims that the two defendants are dismissing the plaintiff as a justification. It is not an unfair dismissal. The plaintiff has no right to claim damages.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4105 - 4108/2550.

The defendant ordered the relocation of the four plaintiffs working at the defendant's agency in Chiang Mai to work at the defendant's agency in Rayong. Ang Thong Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Province And Samutprakarn and Chachoengsao. Moving by the defendant has the right to enforce the regulations on the work of the defendant. Even moving a workplace will have an impact on a person's daily life in a displaced family. The new position that the plaintiff ordered the plaintiffs to move to work and the wage received was not lower than the original position. When the defendant did not appear to have committed other acts of bullying, the four plaintiffs. Moving orders of the defendant is like the rules of work and the law. The four plaintiffs are obliged to work in the office at the order of the move. When the four plaintiffs failed to perform their duties in the office as ordered by the move, they abandoned the position in a new position without reasonable cause. Even the plaintiffs will continue to perform their duties in Chiang Mai. Defendant to the plaintiffs to work on the new duties on April 18, 2005, but the plaintiffs four until April 20, 2005 to abandon the duty for 3 consecutive days. The defendant terminated the four plaintiffs without paying compensation. The Labor Protection Act, BE 2541 (1998), section 119 (5)

The four plaintiffs, who are employees, have the duties and responsibilities under the employment contract and the Civil and Commercial Code to follow the move. When the four plaintiffs failed to follow the new duty at the agency, the order moved. It is not appropriate to perform their duties properly and honestly. The defendant terminated the four plaintiffs without notice in advance under Section 583 defendant did not pay the employee instead of the advance notice to the plaintiff. Defendant dismissed because the four plaintiffs abandoned duty for 3 consecutive days without cause. Is a reasonable dismissal. It's not an unfair dismissal. The defendant did not pay the unfair dismissal of four plaintiffs.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7096/2550.

Employment Conditions Agreement Identify the right of an employer to terminate an employee due to a lack of capacity. "In the event that an employee is unable to perform his or her work in accordance with the Company's standard, the Company provides training or training. Or from frequent absences or from irresponsible jobless or poorly rated by several supervisors. The employer's right to terminate the employment can be categorized into two cases, ie, if the employee is unable to perform his or her job in accordance with the employer's standard. In cases where the employee is absent from work, frequently or irresponsibly, is not interested in the job or is under-assessed by a supervisor. In the first case, the employer shall terminate the employment by the employer for the training or training, and the employee shall not be able to perform the job in accordance with the employer's standard. This is the case for the ability of an employee who is unable to perform work to the standards of the employer. In the latter case, where the employee is often absent or irresponsible, does not care about the job or is under-assessed by several supervisors. Which can be seen A case of employee behavior that can be improved. In the latter case, the employer shall terminate the employment only when the employer has warned or has been punished. However, the employee does not improve to the satisfaction of the supervisor. Therefore, the employer must be warned or punished and then be forced into the first case with no. The Labor Court hears the fact that From the evaluation of the plaintiff several times. The plaintiff's work is still low and not the standard of the defendant as the plaintiff can not work to meet the standards. Defendant has the right to terminate the plaintiff without the need to warn in writing or other punishments before. The defendant dismissed the plaintiff despite not being warned or punished before the plaintiff. I like the terms of employment mentioned above. The case is reasonable enough to dismiss it. It is not an unfair dismissal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6021/2550.

The defendant is a wholly owned subsidiary of a parent company in the UK, which has branches around the world. In Asia, the defendant's office is a company in Singapore (Singapore). The plaintiff was employed as an employee of the company (Australia) and transferred to an employee of the company (Malaysia), the plaintiff has the right to work. Well And the plaintiff would be entitled to vacation in the case of work as long as it has been. Subsequently, the plaintiff transferred to an employee defendant. And the contract with the company (Singapore) stated that it is a plaintiff employment after work with the company (Singapore), and the plaintiff still has the right to accumulate a holiday in the case of work for a long time. From the past When the agreement is not expressly prohibited by law, it is impossible. Or contrary to the public order or good morals of the people. Does not stipulate the right of employees to stop in the case of a long time, it is bound to the defendant, the employer.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10332/2550.

Even the termination letter. One reason for dismissal is that the plaintiff did not work on March 22 and 26, 2004. But the defendant's company records that the plaintiff was working on that date. The defendant had to pay the plaintiff a daily fee of 10 baht a day for 20 baht, which is a fraud on 22 and 26 March 2004, which does not match the Central Labor Court hear the fact that the plaintiff did not come to work on. March 24, 2004, but the plaintiff modified the information that came to work on that date. The plaintiff benefited from a 300 baht a month allowance and a daily food allowance of 10 baht, which was a dishonest act on March 24, 2004, which was a dishonorable duty each day. But it is a plaintiff to identify the plaintiff is the reason for the defendant dismissed. The plaintiff in the contract termination. Only the date of the plaintiff's misconduct to err on the details, then the defendant will justify the plaintiff's dishonesty to fight to not pay the cost.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2289/2550.

Notice in advance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 582, paragraph one, only the parties to terminate the contract notice to the other party. One to know in advance whether to terminate the contract. The notice must be given at any one time. Or before any payment will be paid to any one will result in the termination. When the next pay period. Not required to notify in advance within the normal work time. Notice of termination of the contract is effective from the date the party has been notified. Know the advance notice. The plaintiff notified the dismissal of the defendant on August 30, 2545, and the defendant to pay the wages before the 25th of the notice of termination of the contract of the defendant, so the termination of the contract when it is due. The next payment is on October 24, 2002, when the defendant, the plaintiff has ceased to be an employee since September 2, 2002, must pay the employee instead of advance notice. The chat function on September 2, 2545 until October 24, 2545 for a period of 53 days.

In lieu of advance notice, there is no specific law on interest, so it is entitled to charge interest between defaults of 7.5 percent per annum under Section 224, paragraph one from the demand. When it appears that the plaintiff demanded that defendant 1 pay the debt when the defendant, the interest must be paid from the date of filing.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 787/2550.

Later on, the company was incorporated on March 27, 2000 by the Company to accept the transfer of life insurance business from the Company. Therefore, from April 11, 1992 to March 26, 2000, Nonetheless, the company has not yet established a new company. Permission to engage in life insurance business under Section 121 paragraph two, but the life insurance business under the provisions of Section 121 paragraph one to continue to operate under the condition that the company must separate the income and expenses of the life insurance business separately from the receipt. The insurance and life insurance business is also the job of the insurance business. Company Apartments. The employer of the plaintiff.

The terms of the employment agreement was made at the time when the plaintiff was an employee of the trial on October 3, 2004, but the text stated that it is a condition of employment while the plaintiff is not an employee of the company. It is a condition that is used only when the plaintiff is a trial worker. The plaintiff must comply with the order of the company and work as assigned by the supervisor. Therefore, the company to the plaintiff, which is a life insurance service employees. Life insurance, which is a part of the company, is a job in the responsibility of the plaintiff in accordance with the conditions of employment. The plaintiff has no right to pay the plaintiff to work for life insurance companies to the company. On 27 March 2000, the defendant was incorporated. The transfer of property, liabilities, liabilities under the policy and employees in the life insurance business from the company, but not transferred to the plaintiff, which is employed in the insurance business. And after March 27, 2000 until the date the plaintiff was terminated. The defendant did not give the plaintiff a life insurance. The plaintiff is not entitled to pay the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 200/2550.

Training contract and see the foreign work between the plaintiff and the defendant. The requirement that the plaintiff, the employer, to pay the costs of sending the defendant, who is an employee training abroad and require the defendant to bring the knowledge, ability and experience gained from training and viewing abroad. Back to work for the benefit of the plaintiff. It is a reciprocal contract. The time for the plaintiff to send the defendant to training will be scheduled for 2 weeks, but the time for the defendant to return to work for the plaintiff has a three-year not to make the plaintiff defendant. During the defendant must return to work for the plaintiff. The defendants continued to receive compensation from their normal work. Not truncated Under the terms of the contract, the defendant does not have to return to work for the plaintiff, the defendant must pay the costs of training and viewing all the work returned to the plaintiff. Calculate the amount of expenses. The defendant must pay compensation in the case that the defendant returned to work for the plaintiff does not expire for 3 years, the training costs and see all the work divided by 36 months, then multiplied by the number of months the defendant is not working. It is in line with the terms of the defendant's right to choose to pay the costs of training and viewing all the work returned to the plaintiff. Instead of returning to work for three years, the plaintiff did not make the defendant as well. It is not an unfair contract. It is not against the peace and good morals of the people. The training contract and the foreign job between the plaintiff and the defendant is not void.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5978/2549.

After the defendant has a ban on the release of a loan outside the system in the defendant. The plaintiff also violates the informal loan to the employees of the defendant's loan interest at 10 percent per month, which is a criminal offense. Do not call interest over the rate. Even if it was not a deliberate criminal offense to the employer. But it is a criminal offense during work. It is also exploiting and causing trouble for colleagues who are laborers, affecting the morale of the work. The business of the defendant was damaged. The plaintiff's actions are a violation of the defendant's order in serious cases. And the defendant was deliberately damaged. The defendant terminated the plaintiff without compensation, without notice, and not unfair dismissal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8242 - 8246/2549.

The plaintiffs 1 to 3 apply for overtime pay under the Labor Contract, which, according to the Labor Protection Act BE 2541, Section 5, defines "wage" means the money paid by the employer and the employee. In return for work under the contract for the normal working period ... And the term "overtime pay" means the money paid by the employer to an employee in return for overtime work on a working day. Even if overtime is not paid according to the meaning. This is not the amount paid by the employer to the employee in return for normal workdays. But it is money that employers pay back to work outside normal hours. The employer is obliged to pay the employee under the employment contract. Considered as a payroll under Section 575, overtime pay is one of the under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (9), which has a two-year lawsuit.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6701/2549.

Termination of Employment Contract without Employment Term There is a general rule in the Civil and Commercial Code Book 3, Section 6, Section 582, which does not require that the termination of employment shall be made in writing. The provision in Section 17 paragraph two of the Labor Protection Act 1998 that in the case of the contract does not specify the period of time the employer or employee may terminate the contract. Hired by advance notice in writing to the other party. It does not prohibit the employer or employee to terminate the contract verbally. Only the other party will know when or before the deadline to pay a certain amount of time to terminate the contract when the next pay period to pay. Termination can be made in writing or verbal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6699/2549.

To consider the relationship of the person as an employer and employee in accordance. Section 5 requires the fact that the person who is an employee is in charge of the employer and must comply with the order, rules and regulations relating to the work of the person who is the employer. Which is the actual relationship of the employer and employee under Section 583.

Ticket salesman Work at specified intervals to go to work or not. If not, just notify the phone. No submission required. Receive sales receipts from the number of tickets sold each day, if not sold or sold only one will not receive compensation. No sales will be made on that day. Leave and welfare It is working independently. Not in command and do not obey orders, regulations or regulations on work. Agreed work on the desired time interval and the assignment of the salesman to the work line must be deducted as a fine. It is not the power of command. It is only a rule to make the sale effective. The relationship between the plaintiff and the salesman is not the employer and employee.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6433/2549.

Defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff's compensation to work on behalf of the plaintiff 47,000 per month, and paid on behalf of the mother of the plaintiff 73,730 baht a month, the mother did not work for the defendant. Pay the plaintiff's compensation on behalf of the plaintiff's mother. It is intended to make the assessment of the plaintiff's use as a base for calculating and paying personal income tax by the plaintiff's income tax reduced from the actual received as follows: Labor contract between the defendant and the plaintiff, despite the agreement. The method of payment of wages caused the state to collect personal income tax from the plaintiff has been reduced to dishonest. But the agreement is void. The plaintiff has the right to be paid in this section. With interest at the rate of 15 percent per year from the date of default until the payment to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6250/2549.

The plaintiff has the expertise and experience in law. It has the duty of giving advice, answering questions about legal issues to the law department or other parties of the defendant. To the bank branch of the defendant. Subsidiary of the defendant And the President of the defendant. This is a problem with normal banking operations of the defendant. The work of the plaintiff is to provide knowledge, opinions, to enable the operator to use the discretion, tightness, accuracy, quality and prevent damage. Although the plaintiff can freely give advice, advice and advice based on the knowledge and ability of the plaintiff's legal profession, without the need for commanders to control the order. And time to work. But the plaintiff must work in the defendant's office ready to act when the consultation comes. Must be subject to the rules or orders of the defendant and under the command of the President of the defendant. Even the plaintiff is not entitled to receive extra money, bonuses, gratuities or benefits received by other employees. But the plaintiff was paid monthly contract. The sick leave must be reported to the President of the defendant. Can not stop the plaintiff's capricious work. The contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is a contract of employment shall be subject to. Labor Protection Act, BE 2541

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4777/2549.

Contract 11, the defendant agreed to contract with the plaintiff. Within one year from the date of the defendant's termination of employment as a plaintiff. The defendant will not work with the company, which is a competitor to the plaintiff, or any action. Indirect or indirect, in a manner that matches the business of the plaintiff. The ban did not define the area. The term of the ban and the prohibited conduct in this case is to enter into another company operating the airline business competing with the plaintiff. When the plaintiff is registered as a juristic person in Thailand. Its head office is located in Thailand. It does not appear that the plaintiff has a branch or business in Hong Kong, although the company is based in Hong Kong. Will be a subsidiary of the plaintiff. The company is a separate entity from the plaintiffs. The business of the plaintiff is not the business of the plaintiff, and it does not appear that the company operates by bringing the product of the plaintiff to sell. Despite the fact that there are businesses competing with the company did not affect the business of the plaintiff. The defendant worked with a company that operates in Hong Kong. It does not work in any other company that competes with the business of the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7675/2548.

The plaintiff's notice informs the employee of the necessity of the plaintiff to stop all business temporarily and pay the employee fifty percent of the wages on the working day throughout the period that the plaintiff stopped temporarily. Section 75 of the Labor Protection Act is not a termination of employment. Even in the announcement, employees will be excluded from their employment as soon as they work for another company. It is only a condition that the plaintiff will use the termination of employment. The defendant 2, who is employed to work with other entities, is not an agreement to terminate the contract with the plaintiff, the defendant is still employed by the plaintiff. While the plaintiff announced a temporary stop. The plaintiff did not assign a job to the second defendant to pay the plaintiff to pay fifty percent of the wage is not paid. However, the money paid under Section 75 and the provisions of such section does not prohibit the employee to work with another person during the employer announced a temporary stop. The second defendant to work with another entity is not abandoning duty or breach of employment contract. When the plaintiff to terminate the second defendant, the defendant did not commit the offense under Section 119, the plaintiff must pay compensation to the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7084 - 7289/2548.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, the employer, the employer paid the compensation and the employee instead of the advance notice in accordance with the orders of the labor inspectors. In case the employee sued the employer to pay under the Labor Protection Act BE 2541, Section 124, paragraph three, and the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 582, the petitioner is a shareholder of the defendant. The employer agrees not to accept work by paying the wages, not the person acting on behalf of the defendant who is a juristic person and not the person authorized by the person acting on behalf of the defendant to act. It is not an employer under the Labor Protection Act BE 2541, Section 5 and not a contractor to pay. Is not an employer under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 575 when the claimant is not an employer, it is not obliged to pay the plaintiff. The petitioner is not a legal interest in the outcome of the case. Section 57 (2) constitutes the Establishment of the Labor Courts and Labor Trial Act, BE 2522 (1979), Section 31

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6786/2548.

The term "wage or other employment" that employees use the right to claim from the employer under Section 193/34 (9) refers to the pay under Section 575, which is the right under the employment contract. But the right to compensation for unfair dismissal. Include the right to receive compensation and compensation instead of the advance notice that the employee claims from the employer. The rights arising from termination after the termination of employment. Not the right contract. Not subject to Section 193/34 (9), so it is valid for 10 years under Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2970/2548.

An employee who agrees to work for an employer for payment under the authority of the employer means that the employee has to work as ordered by the employer and must comply with the rules or regulations governing the work of the employer. If the employee violates the employer can be punished. So when the plaintiff's work is not under the control of the defendant. Or to follow the rules or regulations regarding the work of the defendant. The plaintiff's work is not under the control of the defendant. The plaintiff is not employed by the defendant. No right to receive wages and compensation from the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2005/2548.

The plaintiff is a director and shareholder in the defendant company. Responsible for marketing. The plaintiff must come to work every day. Some days or most are at work sites. Operation or solution as usual. The plaintiff did it independently. Unless big. Or high amount. Or may cause damage The plaintiff must be approved by the meeting of the Board of Directors or consultants. The plaintiff is not subject to the rules or regulations of the company's defendant. The plaintiff is working as a director and shareholder to take care of the interests of the defendant, the plaintiff is a co-founder. Even the plaintiff will receive a salary from the defendant. It is not a contract of employment under Section 575 of the plaintiff is not in the position of an employee of the defendant. At the shareholders' meeting, the plaintiff's decision to remove the defendant. The plaintiff has no right to sue money. The contract of employment from the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2189 - 2190/2548.

Even the contract of employment with the contract of employment will be similar. Employees or contractors are required to work for the employer or employer. And the employer or employer agrees to pay the employee or the employer as well. It has a different style that is important. According to the employment contract, an employee must work for the employer in accordance with the purpose of the agreed labor contract without the need for an agreement for the achievement of one particular task. Or the remuneration of the outcome of the agreed work in any way. Employers under employment contracts have the power to delegate and control the work of an employee to perform any work under an agreement on such employment and condition. The contract of employment. Employers and contractors are intended to accomplish one or more of the following employment agreements. The results of the work agreed to do it is important. The employer does not have the right to command the contractor in any way. Ways of paying monthly And the employer provides equipment to work for the work. This is usually the case in the case of hiring an employee to work for an employer under a labor contract. But it is not the fact that it is always the case under the employment contract. The employment contract may involve the payment of compensation or the supply of equipment or work equipment, as well as employment.

Posted in: