Finland
Shortening the notice period for lay-offs
Impact date: 1 June 2026 Amendments have been made to the notice period for lay-offs. When an employer lays off an employee, the employee must be notified. Under the previous rules, such notification must be given at least 14 calendar days before the lay-off begins.
Parliament has adopted a legislative reform under which the notice period for lay-offs is shortened to seven days. If the employer’s normally or generally applicable collective bargaining agreement contains 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 need be observed, except where the collective bargaining agreement contains a provision on local agreement regarding the lay-off notice period.
Employer implications/action needed None currently.
Employer risk N/A
Amendments concerning fixed-term employment contracts
Impact date: 1 June 2026 Amendments will allow employers, in certain situations, to conclude fixed-term employment contracts without a justified reason that would normally be required. Parliament has adopted a legislative reform under which a fixed-term employment contract may, at the employer’s initiative, be concluded without the statutory requirement of a justified reason if the maximum duration of the employment relationship is one year, provided that it concerns the first employment relationship between the employer and the employee during the five years preceding the conclusion of the employment contract. Before the end of the fixed term the employer must 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 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
Impact date: 1 June 2026 The obligation on re-employment has been amended. If an employer has terminated 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 terminated employee, if the terminated 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.
Under the new rules, the re-employment obligation applies only to employers who regularly have at least 50 employees in an employment relationship. Companies shall, 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
Application of normally vs universally binding collective bargaining agreement (case law)
Impact date: 12 June 2026 The Finnish Supreme Court considered which collective bargaining agreement (CBA) applied to temporary agency workers supplied by a staffing agency to a client company. The staffing agency was bound, as a member of an employers' organisation, by a normally binding CBA, while the client company's own employees were covered by a different universally binding CBA that provided more favourable terms and conditions. The agency workers argued that they should receive the more favourable terms applicable to the client company's employees
The Supreme Court rejected the claim and held that the staffing agency was entitled to apply the normally binding CBA that was binding on it as the employer, even though the client company's employees were covered by a different and more favourable collective agreement. The Court concluded that the equal-treatment provisions in the EU Temporary Agency Work Directive do not have direct effect between private parties and that Finland had lawfully relied on the Directive's provision allowing social-partner agreements and collective bargaining arrangements to regulate agency workers' terms and conditions. As a result, agency workers supplied by a temporary work agency may, in certain circumstances, lawfully be subject to different pay and employment conditions from comparable employees of the user undertaking.
Employer implications/action needed Temporary work agencies should review which collective agreement applies to their workforce and ensure that agency workers' terms and conditions are administered in accordance with the applicable agreement. User companies should not assume that agency workers must automatically receive identical terms to their own employees. However, both staffing agencies and user companies should continue to assess agency-worker arrangements carefully, particularly where multiple collective agreements may be relevant.
Employer risk The judgment provides greater certainty for staffing agencies regarding the collective agreement that may be applied to agency workers. Nevertheless, disputes may still arise where it is unclear which collective agreement applies or whether an agency is correctly applying the relevant agreement. Employers using agency labour should therefore ensure that contractual arrangements and pay practices are consistent with the applicable collective bargaining framework.
Link KKO:2026:45 - Korkein oikeus (available in Finnish only)
Coronavirus pandemic and salary payment (case law)
Impact date: 26 June 2026 The Finnish Supreme Court examined whether an employer could limit salary payments during a work interruption caused by measures taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A municipality had suspended the work of a teaching assistant on the basis that coronavirus-related restrictions had prevented the employee from working and therefore paid salary only for the 14-day period provided for in the Employment Contracts Act where work is prevented due to an exceptional event beyond the employer's control.
The Supreme Court held that, although the coronavirus pandemic and related restrictions could constitute an exceptional event within the meaning of the Employment Contracts Act, this alone was not sufficient to limit salary payments. The employer had to demonstrate that the employee was actually unable to perform their work as a result of that event. In this case, the city failed to prove that the teaching assistant's work had genuinely been prevented by the restrictions. As a result, the employee remained entitled to salary for the entire period of the work interruption, rather than only the initial 14 days.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should not assume that the existence of an exceptional event, such as a pandemic, natural disaster or other external disruption, automatically allows salary payments to be limited to the statutory 14-day period. Before relying on this exception, employers should be able to demonstrate with clear evidence that the employee's work could not be performed because of the specific event and that there was no realistic possibility of continuing the work. Decisions to suspend pay should therefore be carefully documented and assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Employer risk Employers who fail to demonstrate that an employee was actually prevented from working may be liable for full salary for the entire period of the work interruption, rather than only the statutory 14-day period.
Link KKO:2026:49 - Korkein oikeus (available in Finnish only)
National implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive
Impact date: 1 January 2027 (estimated) 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.
On 9 July 2026, a Government proposal was submitted to Parliament. The legislative amendments are expected to enter into force on 1 January 2027.
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.
Changes to carried-over holiday entitlement
Impact date: 1 January 2027 (estimated) The Finnish Government has proposed changes to the rules on when carried-over holiday can be taken. Carried-over holiday allows employees to save part of their annual holiday and use it later. Under the current rules, if the employee and employer cannot agree on when the leave will be taken, the employee can decide the timing. Under the proposed changes, employers would in certain situations be allowed to refuse an employee's request to take carried-over holiday at a particular time.
Employer implications/action needed The proposed amendment would make it easier for employers to manage situations where taking carried-over holiday at a particular time would disrupt their operations or make it difficult to schedule annual leave and carried-over holiday fairly among employees.
Employer risk Employers should ensure that any refusal to grant carried-over holiday at a requested time is properly justified to avoid disputes with employees.
Link
Säästövapaan ajankohdasta päättäminen - Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö (available in Finnish only)
Working time
Impact date: 1 January 2027 (estimated) The Finnish Government has proposed a new negligence fee that could be imposed by the occupational safety and health authority on employers who intentionally or negligently fail to comply with their obligations relating to work schedules, working time records or annual leave records.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should review and ensure compliance with their obligations relating to work schedules, working time records and annual leave records.
Employer risk Intentional or negligent non-compliance with work schedule, working time record or annual leave record obligations could result in a negligence fee of up to €10,000, or up to €15,000 where two or more violations are penalized simultaneously.
Link
Lausuntokierros alkaa: työnantajalle laiminlyöntimaksu työaika- ja vuosilomavelvollisuuksien laiminlyönnistä - Valtioneuvosto (available in Finnish only)
Stricter conditions for residence permits
Impact date: 3 March 2027 (estimated) The Finnish Government has proposed stricter conditions for residence permits to combat labour exploitation. Under the proposed legislation, the Finnish Immigration Service would be given stronger powers to intervene in suspected cases of exploitation, recruitment fees charged to employees would be prohibited as a condition of a residence permit, and employers could more easily be barred from hiring foreign workers under work-based residence permits.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should review recruitment fee arrangements and hiring practices for foreign workers to ensure no recruitment fees are charged to employees. Employers should also ensure compliance with their other immigration obligations in order to avoid the risk of being barred from hiring under work-based residence permits.
Employer risk A decision to refrain from issuing permits may be made if the employer has given false or misleading information on, for instance, the collective agreement applicable to an employee’s employment relationship, on the employer's ability to meet their obligations as an employer, or on the principal terms of work.
Link
Lainsäädäntöhanke työperäisen hyväksikäytön torjumiseksi oleskelulupamenettelyssä - Valtioneuvosto (available in Finnish only)
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.