Finland
Lowering the threshold for terminating employment
Impact date: The legislative amendments entered into force on 1 January 2026. The Finnish Parliament has approved amendments to the legislation under which termination of an employment contract on grounds related to the employee’s person would be possible on the basis of a mere “proper” reason, instead of the previously required “proper and weighty” reason.
Employer implications/action needed None currently.
Employer risk Following the reform, it remains somewhat unclear to what extent the threshold for termination will be lowered as a result of the changes. This will become clearer over time as case law on the application of the revised legislation develops.
Treating the employment contract as having terminated due to pre‑trial detention (case law)
Impact date: 27 January 2026 A was arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence and was subsequently absent from work. A’s employer, B Oy, became aware of A’s arrest on the same day. B Oy later terminated A’s employment contract by stating that it considered the contract to have terminated with effect from the date of the arrest. A was later released from pre‑trial detention without charges being brought. A brought an action seeking compensation for unjustified termination of the employment contract.
According to the Supreme Court, where the employee had a valid reason for the absence of which the employer was aware, the employer was not entitled to treat the employment contract as having terminated.
Employer implications/action needed N/A
Employer risk N/A
Link KKO 2026:8 (only in Finnish)
Employer entitled to change the meal‑break arrangement for train drivers (case law)
Impact date: 6 February 2026 For several years, commuter train drivers took a 35‑minute paid meal break during working time. This practice came to an end when the employer decided to move to an unpaid 59‑minute break, which was later further shortened to 30 minutes.
The dispute before the courts concerned whether the drivers’ right to take a meal during paid working time had become a binding term of their employment on the basis of an implied agreement or an established practice.
The collective bargaining agreement allowed for both a paid and an unpaid meal‑break model. Although the paid option had been applied for a long period, the Supreme Court held that it had not become an established and binding term of employment.
Employer implications/action needed N/A
Employer risk N/A
Link KKO 2026:12 (only in Finnish)
Misclassification - Employment status of platform workers (case law)
Impact date: 19 March 2026 The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) dismissed an application to rescind its own final decision of 22 May 2025 (KHO 2025:41), which concerned the employment status of food delivery couriers operating via a digital platform. In that decision, the Court had held that the food delivery couriers were in an employment relationship. The applicant submitted that the judgement involved an evidently incorrect application of the law, particularly in light of the CJEU's Yodel Delivery Network order (C-692/19), as well as procedural errors. The Court held that the original ruling reflected a permissible legal assessment in an area requiring evaluative judgment, and that the strict statutory grounds for rescission of a final judgment were not met..
Employer implications/action needed Employers should assess whether the correct classification has been applied to workers.
Employer risk Misclassification of workers can lead to litigation, regulatory enforcement and financial liability
Link KHO 19.3.2026/713 | 19.3.2026 | Muut julkaistut päätökset | Korkein hallinto-oikeus | Finlex (available in Finnish only)
Shortening the notice period for lay-offs
Impact date: The proposed date of entry into force is 1 April 2026 Amendments are proposed to the notice period for lay-offs. When an employer lays off an employee, the employee must be notified. Under the current rules, such notification must be given at least 14 calendar days before the lay-off begins.
If the proposed amendments are approved in the form presented, the notice period for lay-offs would be shortened to seven days. If the employer’s normally or generally applicable collective bargaining agreement were to contain provisions on a longer lay-off notice period than the statutory seven days, it would be possible to agree at workplace level that only the statutory notice period needs to be observed.
Employer implications/action needed None currently.
Employer risk N/A
Amendments concerning fixed-term employment contracts
Impact date: The proposed date of entry into force is 1 April 2026 Amendments will allow employers, in certain situations, to conclude fixed-term employment contracts without a justified reason that would normally be required. Under the proposal, a fixed-term contract of up to one year could be made at the employer’s initiative if it is the first employment contract between the parties, or if at least two years have passed since their previous employment relationship ended, even where the employer’s need for labor is permanent. The contract could be renewed twice within a one-year period from the conclusion of the first fixed-term employment contract, provided the total duration does not exceed one year, and before the end of the fixed term the employer would have to give the employee a justified explanation regarding the possibility of a permanent position or, for a justified reason, further fixed-term employment.
Employer implications/action needed No action is required at this stage, but if the reform enters into force, employers should review and potentially adjust recruitment practices, particularly for new hires where long-term need is uncertain.
Employer risk N/A
Amendments to the re-employment obligation after dismissal
Impact date: The proposed date of entry into force is 1 April 2026 The obligation on re-employment may be changing. At present, if an employer has dismissed an employee on financial or production-related grounds, or in connection with a reorganization procedure, and the employer requires new employees for the same or similar duties within four months of the end of the employment relationship, the employer is obliged to offer the position to the dismissed employee, if the dismissed employee is registered as a jobseeker. However, if the employment relationship has continued without interruption for at least 12 years by the time of its termination, the re-employment period is six months.
If the proposed amendments are approved in the form presented, the re-employment obligation would apply only to employers who regularly have at least 50 employees in an employment relationship. Companies should, however, continue to comply with any provisions in collective bargaining agreements regarding the re-employment obligation.
Employer implications/action needed The amendment may benefit small employers by removing the need to assess whether a role triggers the re-employment obligation and allowing them to hire the most suitable candidates for new roles without regard to earlier redundancies.
Employer risk N/A
Industrial peace obligation (case law)
Impact date: 13 April 2026 The Finnish Labour Court ruled on a dispute between an employer association and two employee unions, OAJ and YTN, over whether one union alone could declare negotiations concluded under a “continuation clause” in the University of Applied Sciences' Collective Agreement, thereby ending the industrial peace obligation. OAJ had unilaterally declared negotiations concluded and issued strike notices while YTN continued negotiating. The Court held that both unions must jointly declare negotiations concluded for the clause to lapse. OAJ breached its industrial peace obligation and was ordered to pay €10,000 in penalties. The claim against YTN was dismissed.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should ensure that, where a collective agreement requires joint action by multiple unions, negotiations are only treated as formally concluded, and industrial peace obligations as lifted, once all relevant unions have jointly agreed to that effect.
Employer risk Employers risk industrial action and disputes over industrial peace if they seek to treat negotiations as concluded too early.
Link TT 2026:9 - Työtuomioistuin (available in Finnish only)
National implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive
Impact date: 7 June 2026 The national implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive continues to progress. The intention is to implement the Directive in accordance with its minimum requirements. However, the legislative process has been delayed. The date of entry into force is currently unknown.
Employer implications/action needed Employers are advised to review and update their recruitment processes to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Directive, to document the criteria for pay and pay progression, to establish a process for responding to employees’ information requests, to identify existing pay gaps and any need for corrective measures and to ensure that pay structures and job evaluation criteria are in place.
Employer risk A breach of certain pay transparency–related obligations may result in the imposition of financial sanctions on the employer.
Link
https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/fi/finland/insights/pay-transparency-the-impact-of-delayed-transposition
Increasing flexibility of fixed-term employment contracts and other changes to the Employment Contracts Act
Impact date: Awaited The Finnish Government has proposed amendments that would, in certain situations, allow employers to conclude fixed-term employment contracts without the justified reason normally required, as well as proposals to shorten the notice period for lay-offs and to amend the re-employment obligation after termination. The proposed date of entry into force for these amendments was 1 April 2026. However, the legislative process has been delayed, and no new entry-into-force date is currently known.
Employer implications/action needed None currently.
Employer risk N/A
Contact
© Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.