Finland
Discrimination in recruitment (case law)
Impact date: 5 March 2026 A served as a Counsellor at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs under the Act on the Foreign Service. During a rotation round for postings abroad, A applied for two deputy head of mission positions. Instead of A, who was the more qualified candidate, the positions were given to individuals of the opposite gender.
According to the grounds set out in the Supreme Court’s (KKO) decision, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs was entitled, when making the appointment decisions, to take into account factors related to staff rotation planning and the operational needs of the Ministry. However, as the Ministry had not sufficiently specified the reasons showing that passing over the more qualified A was due to other acceptable factors than gender, its conduct was considered prohibited discrimination under the Act on Equality between Women and Men.
Employer implications/action needed N/A
Employer risk N/A
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)
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)
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
National implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive
Impact date: Awaited 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.
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.