Managing conflict in the workplace before it reaches court

Why Business Success Depends on Strong People Practices 

Strong people practices do more than support employees. They protect management time, reduce avoidable business risk and help organisations deal with difficult workplace issues before they become costly and disruptive disputes. 

More than 10,000 new cases entered Thailand’s Labour Courts in 2024. Add the 30,629 grievances recorded by the Ministry of Labour in 2025, and an already daunting picture becomes far more serious. 

The two figures represent different processes and should not be combined into a single statistical total. Labour Court filings are formal legal proceedings, while the Ministry figures relate to grievances submitted to labour officials. Taken together, however, they demonstrate the scale of employment-related concerns that are being taken outside the workplace for formal consideration. 

For business leaders, this is not simply an HR or legal issue. A dispute can consume management time, disrupt operations, damage trust and distract senior people from customers, performance and growth. 

The legal fees or compensation may be clearly visible. The wider cost to the business is often much harder to calculate. 

Thailand's Labour Courts are handling more employment claims 

Thailand’s Office of the Judiciary recorded 10,572 new Labour Court cases during 2024. A further 4,658 cases had been carried forward from the previous year, giving the courts a total caseload of 15,230. Although 10,718 cases were completed during the year, 4,512 remained pending at the end of 2024.  

The most common claims also tell us something important about where disputes arise. The five leading categories were: 

• 2,300 claims seeking reinstatement or compensation following an alleged unfair dismissal;  
• 2,181 claims relating to statutory compensation or severance;  
• 1,955 claims for payment in lieu of notice;  
• 1,937 claims concerning the correct and timely payment of wages; and  
• 1,527 claims for other payments under the Labour Protection Act.  

A single case may contain several claims, so these figures cannot be added together to calculate the number of individual cases. They do, however, show that dismissal, severance, notice and the payment of employment entitlements account for a significant proportion of Labour Court activity.  

These are not obscure legal issues affecting only a small number of unusual organisations. They arise from employment decisions that companies and managers make every day. 

Formal grievances are rising faster than court filings 

Labour Court cases provide only one part of the picture. 

Employees may also take grievances and financial claims to the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare. These are not court proceedings, and not every grievance will subsequently reach the Labour Court. Nevertheless, the figures show the much wider volume of concerns being referred outside the organisation. 

In 2025, the Ministry of Labour recorded 30,629 grievances involving 46,384 employees. Labour officials made 24,542 decisions establishing financial entitlements for 37,006 employees, involving more than THB 1.92 billion.  

The direction of travel is equally notable. The number of grievances rose from 11,585 in 2019 to 20,022 in 2023, 24,638 in 2024 and 30,629 in 2025. The annual figure has therefore increased by more than two and a half times since 2019.  

Not every grievance indicates that an employer has acted improperly, just as not every Labour Court claim will succeed. Employers and employees may genuinely disagree about what happened, the meaning of an agreement or whether a decision was reasonable. 

The figures nevertheless demonstrate that workplace disputes represent a material business risk in Thailand. 

Why a dispute stays a management problem for months 

It would be misleading to suggest that every Labour Court case continues for years. Many are resolved more quickly. The official figures show, however, that a significant number remain active for extended periods. 

Of the 10,718 Labour Court cases completed during 2024, 3,660, or approximately 34%, took more than six months to conclude. Within that number, 891 cases took more than one year.  

At the end of 2024, 4,512 cases remained pending. Of these, 1,077 had already been pending for more than six months, including 137 that had remained unresolved for more than one year.  

The number of cases is not the only factor affecting how long a matter takes. The complexity of the evidence, the availability of witnesses, hearing schedules, negotiations and possible appeals may all influence the duration. 

The important point for employers is that once a matter enters the formal dispute process, it may remain a management issue for many months and, in some cases, considerably longer. 

The organisation may need to locate employment contracts, workplace rules, payroll information, attendance records, emails, investigation notes and previous warnings. Managers and witnesses may have to prepare statements, meet advisers and attend hearings. 

The matter does not simply pass to the lawyers while everyone else returns to business as usual. 

Directors and senior managers may be asked to explain decisions made months earlier. HR and finance teams may receive repeated requests for information. Operational managers may be taken away from their employees, customers and other priorities. 

There is also a wider human effect. Other employees may know that a dispute is taking place, even when the details remain confidential. They will watch how the organisation responds and may draw their own conclusions about whether decisions are fair, managers are consistent and employee concerns are taken seriously. 

The legal bill is only part of what conflict costs 

There does not appear to be a comprehensive Thai study placing a financial value on the management time lost through workplace disputes. Research from the United Kingdom nevertheless illustrates why employers should look beyond lawyers’ fees and compensation. 

Research prepared for the UK’s Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service estimated that workplace conflict costs UK organisations approximately GBP 28.5 billion each year, equivalent to more than GBP 1,000 for every employee. 

Within that total, the annual cost of management time spent dealing with potential and actual employment litigation was estimated at GBP 282 million. This was slightly higher than the estimated GBP 264 million spent on legal fees and was separate from a further GBP 225 million in compensation awards.  

These figures are based on the UK market and cannot be transferred directly to Thailand. Salary levels, employment practices and legal processes are different. The underlying lesson, however, is just as relevant: the internal cost of dealing with a dispute may be at least as significant as the external legal cost. 

The same research found that where workplace conflict escalated into formal procedures, the costs were more than three times those associated with informal resolution.  

Consider the management time involved in one contested dismissal. The managing director may spend hours reviewing the history of the matter. The employee’s manager may be interviewed several times. HR may need to find, organise and explain documents. Finance may be asked to verify payments and calculations. External advisers will require briefings, and several people may need to attend meetings or hearings. 

None of this time is free. 

A business leader spending two days preparing for a court hearing is not spending those two days meeting customers, improving operations or developing the business. That opportunity cost does not normally appear in the legal budget, but it remains a genuine cost to the organisation. 

The wider consequences may include reduced concentration, sickness absence, declining morale, unwanted turnover and damage to trust. Even after the legal proceedings have ended, the effects within the workplace may remain. 

Where weak hr practices in thailand create disputes 

It would be wrong to suggest that every workplace dispute can, or should, be avoided. 

There will always be cases involving serious misconduct, contested rights or fundamental disagreements that properly require formal legal determination. Employees must also remain able to raise legitimate concerns and exercise their rights without being discouraged from doing so. 

Many disputes, however, do not begin with an exceptionally difficult point of law. They begin with much more familiar weaknesses. 

An employment contract may no longer reflect the employee’s actual working arrangements. Workplace rules may exist but may never have been properly explained. A policy may have been copied from another organisation without being adapted to the business. Different managers may apply different standards to similar situations. 

Performance concerns may have been discussed repeatedly but never properly documented. An investigation may reach its conclusion before all the evidence has been considered. Disciplinary action may be disproportionate or inconsistent. A termination decision may be made without a clear record of how it was reached or why a particular course of action was chosen. 

Communication is often central to the problem. Employees may not fully understand what is expected of them, while managers assume that those expectations are obvious. Concerns are allowed to build because managers are uncomfortable addressing them. By the time a formal process begins, positions may have hardened and trust may already have been lost. 

Clear policies are important, but policies alone are not enough. 

They must reflect the organisation, be properly communicated and be applied consistently. Managers need to know how to discuss poor performance, investigate concerns fairly, handle difficult conversations and document the reasons for their decisions. 

It is often the gap between written policy and everyday management practice that creates the greatest risk. 

Strong people practices work as a business control 

In many growing organisations, people's practices develop gradually rather than by design. 

A new process is introduced when a particular problem arises. Different managers develop their own ways of handling absence, performance or misconduct. Documents are inherited from former employees or copied from other companies. Responsibility is divided between HR, finance, operations and senior management without anyone having a complete view. 

This may appear workable while the organisation is small or stable. Weaknesses tend to become visible when the business grows, changes leadership, restructures, acquires another organisation or faces its first serious employee complaint. 

Strong people practices do not mean creating an unnecessarily bureaucratic workplace. Nor do they require a lengthy policy for every possible situation. 

They mean establishing clear responsibilities, practical processes, appropriate records and managers who understand what they are expected to do. They also require the organisation to check that what happens in practice is consistent with what its contracts, policies and workplace rules say should happen. 

Employment documentation, workplace rules, payroll, leave administration, performance management, investigations, disciplinary decisions and termination procedures should not operate as disconnected activities. Together, they form an important part of the organisation’s control environment. 

When these fundamentals are in place, concerns can be identified earlier, managers can make better-informed decisions and the organisation is in a much stronger position to explain and defend the action it has taken. 

Just as importantly, employees are more likely to understand what is expected of them and to believe that concerns and decisions will be handled consistently. 

Strong people practices are therefore not simply about reducing legal risk. They help protect management time, operational continuity, workplace trust and ultimately business performance. 

How Forvis Mazars supports employers before disputes escalate 

Forvis Mazars in Thailand supports organisations in strengthening their people practices and managing workplace issues before they escalate into formal disputes. 

This may begin with an HR Health Check, examining the organisation’s employment documentation, responsibilities, processes and day-to-day management practices. We can then help address identified weaknesses through practical policies and procedures, disciplinary and grievance frameworks, management training and ongoing fractional HR leadership support. 

The objective is not simply to produce more paperwork. It is to establish clear and workable practices, improve the consistency of communication and give managers the confidence to address concerns at the right time and in the right way. 

Early support can also be valuable when a particular issue has already arisen. A concern that is addressed promptly, fairly and with appropriate advice is less likely to develop into a breakdown of trust or an entrenched dispute. 

Strong people practices cannot prevent every disagreement, and some cases will properly require the attention and independent determination of the Labour Court. 

Where legal advice or formal legal support is required, Forvis Mazars can also provide assistance through the expertise of our Legal Services team. Clients can therefore access experienced HR support to improve their practices and manage workplace issues, alongside legal expertise when a matter cannot be resolved internally or must proceed through a formal legal process. 

The best time to strengthen people's practices is before a serious issue arises. 

The next best time is when the first warning signs appear, while the matter can still be managed, relationships may still be repaired and business leaders can remain focused on running the organisation. 

Strengthen your people practices before a dispute starts 

The organisations that spend least on employment disputes are the ones that fixed their contracts, workplace rules and manager training before anything went wrong. If your employment documentation has not been reviewed since the business last grew, restructured or changed leadership, that is the gap worth closing first. 

Forvis Mazars in Thailand works on both sides of the problem. Our HR advisory and outsourcing teams help you strengthen everyday practice. Where a matter needs formal handling, our Thailand legal consultant team advises on employment agreements, work rules and regulations, and labour dispute resolution. 

Talk to us about your employment documentation, workplace rules and management processes. 

FAQ section: 

Q1: What HR practices should companies in Thailand have in place? 

Companies in Thailand should have employment contracts that reflect what employees actually do, workplace rules that have been properly explained rather than copied from another business, and consistent processes for absence, performance, investigations, disciplinary action and termination. Payroll, leave administration and record keeping should connect to those processes rather than run separately. The practical test is whether day to day management matches what the contracts and workplace rules say should happen. Forvis Mazars in Thailand supports employers with HR advisory and outsourced HR services, payroll, and employment law advisory, alongside work permit and visa services. 
 

Q2: How can companies reduce workplace disputes in Thailand? 

Most disputes in Thailand do not begin with a difficult point of law. They begin with contracts that no longer match the role, policies that were never adapted to the business, managers applying different standards to similar situations, and performance concerns that were discussed but never documented. Reducing disputes means closing those gaps before they are tested: review employment documentation, communicate workplace rules, train managers to handle difficult conversations and investigations fairly, and record how and why decisions were made. Research by Acas found that where conflict escalated into formal procedures, costs were more than three times those of informal resolution, so acting early is also the cheaper option. 
 

Q3: What workplace conflict resolution strategies work best for HR teams? 

Early and informal resolution consistently costs less than formal escalation. Research prepared for the UK's Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service found that where workplace conflict escalated into formal procedures, costs were more than three times those of informal resolution. For HR teams the practical strategies are: address concerns promptly rather than letting positions harden, apply policies consistently, listen to all parties, investigate concerns fairly, document discussions and decisions, and communicate outcomes clearly.