Thread: Non-Competition Clause when working for a Teacher Agency in Thailand

In Thailand you can be working at a school on an employment contract directly with the school or on one with an teacher agency.

When working for a teacher agency the agency often uses non-competition clauses in the employment contract with the teacher.

A typical non-competition clause states that the employee agrees that during or after cessation of the employment contract, for a limited period of time the employee will not engage, directly or indirectly, in any trade or business which are in competition with the employer’s activities.

So, let’s say you are working for a school on an employment contract with a teacher agency. The administration of the school likes you and want you to be directly employed by the school. This can be prohibited by the non-competition clause in your contract with the teacher agency. The same applies for a limited period of time after your contract with the teacher agency has ended.

Some teachers don’t care as they might move on to other schools and other places not related to the teacher agency but some teachers might care.

Just a heads up.

Originally Posted by Stamp

Just a heads up.

And a good one it is. I wonder how interested parties would go about confirming the legality of these clauses.

ie:
Are there any laws on the books regarding the maximum duration of this non-competition period?
Are there any laws on the books regarding the maximum fines of having broken the contract?
Are there any legal conditions under which the contract may become null and void?

Originally Posted by crew

I wonder how interested parties would go about confirming the legality of these clauses.

We've had an agency in Phetchaburi, previously belonging to a large national chain of agencies. Cases never came to court. The agency threatening the teachers was enough to keep the teachers from working directly for the schools. Moreover, the non-competition clause didn't apply to the teachers only. The agency had also these type of clauses in their business contracts with the schools. So basically, the teacher cannot get hired directly by the school and the school cannot hire the teacher directly. The period of time involved in this case was 3 years.

According to several articles on the net, non-competition clauses are very arbitrary and in court all circumstances are considered, giving me the feeling that often the agency might lose. Question obviously is whether both teacher and school want to bring the case to court.

In my opinion, teachers need to avoid these agencies all together.

Get online, find an opening and go for an interview. And once you find the right job, start working without someone taking a piece of your pie.

My experience with an agency in Petchaburi included a non-comp clause. A demand that is absolutely ridiculous. Frankly, I find it a little insulting.Especially since it cost me more to work for them than I made--they sucked me dry. A THB 20,000 escrow to enforce their contract? It represented their lack of integrity. Presently, I work for an organization in Ayutthaya that has treated me honestly and with respect. I guess I consider it a matter of respect and a matter honor to treat my employers as they have treated me--that is gratefully, gracefully, respectfully and honorably. When an organization functions on those principals, there really should be no need of fear of some sort of betrayal of services. Integrity, trumps the BS.

Originally Posted by crew

Are there any laws on the books regarding the maximum duration of this non-competition period? Are there any laws on the books regarding the maximum fines of having broken the contract? Are there any legal conditions under which the contract may become null and void?

I asked Khun Google this question and I read a very easy to read and well written overview of Thai labour law.

Skimming through i did not immediately pick up the answers to your questions, however, I think what is not written in the Thai laws is more telling than what is.

Originally Posted by Stamp

According to several articles on the net, non-competition clauses are very arbitrary and in court all circumstances are considered

would imagine they would consider which side showed up with a bottle of JW Black first.

Originally Posted by UpCountryFarang

In my opinion, teachers need to avoid these agencies all together.

you are not alone in that opinion :D

Originally Posted by olaf

Presently, I work for an organization in Ayutthaya that has treated me honestly and with respect. I guess I consider it a matter of respect and a matter honor to treat my employers as they have treated me--that is gratefully, gracefully, respectfully and honorably.

Far too few of these organizations in Thailand. And far too many wankers posing as teachers (this board aside) in Thailand.

Thanks for the link above and a nice overview of Employment law there. As you know, bit of info in another thread and check out this link to post 31
Thai Labour Act 1998 and 2008 revised points (PDF)

Originally Posted by UpCountryFarang

In my opinion, teachers need to avoid these agencies all together.

Yup, I agree on the whole ...much better to work direct for the school ... cutting out the 'middle man' generally works in both party's favour. However, there's good and bad agencies out there.

My twopence worth on this non-competition clause: Tis' a savvy businees move on behalf of a said agency ... they still want to get their slice of the pie and don't want to be cut out the loop by the school being able to turn round to the agency and say 'we don't want you anymore' and then retain the teachers the agency found in the first place.

I'm with the agency on this one, as they are the ones who found the teachers for the school in the first place and thus they are rightly protecting their interest. As for teachers who sign a contract accordingly with a clause like this, then the owness is on the teacher .... you don't have to take the job do you? (irrespective of this clause and its debateable legal standing)

Sorry for my opinion and you're welcome to disagree

Originally Posted by Gor Blimey Guvnur!

I'm with the agency on this one, as they are the ones who found the teachers for the school in the first place and thus they are rightly protecting their interest.

In the UK, agencies charge a one-off finders fee for finding the employee, at least for professional positions...less money from long term employees via this route though.

Originally Posted by slamb

In the UK, agencies charge a one-off finders fee for finding the employee, at least for professional positions.

a good buddy of mine is a recruiter for proper teachers looking for work in the UK and abroad. he has his finder's fee and makes roughly 1,000 GBP each month for their first year of employment.

Originally Posted by Gor Blimey Guvnur!

Sorry for my opinion

unless it's your opinion that it's fun to watch manchester united continually win the league, there's nothing to be sorry about.

My wife was speaking/ranting about this today.

the school is paying her 42k and she is paying the teacher 38k plus she pays for the WP and visa. so makes very little profit out of this and yet the teacher went behind her back to try to get employed directly by the school.

She found the teacher, she found the school, she put them together, she got his non-b and work permit and this is how they treat them.

but she has one of these clauses in the contract... so now the greedy teacher is out of a job, the school has to find their own staff (or pay 100k compensation).

The best thing is that she probably would have let him go directly with the school if they hadn't done it all behind the agency's back.