Browse through brief employment and labor law updates from around the globe. Contact a Littler attorney for more information or view our global locations.

View all Q2 2022 Global Guide Quarterly updates   Download full Q2 2022 Global Guide Quarterly

Implementing EU Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions in the European Union

New Legislation Enacted

Author: Antti Rajamäki, Special Counsel – Dottir Attorneys Ltd.

A governmental proposal has been issued to implement EU Directive on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union. According to the proposal, the following amendments will be made to the legislation: (i) content of the written information regarding working conditions to be given to the employee shall be elaborated; (ii) due to the request of a part-time or fixed-term employee the employer will have to give a justified response on possibilities to increase the regular working hours or the length of employment contract; (iii) regulation to be implemented regarding situations where an employee consent is required to order an employee with variable working hours to do a work shift; and (iv) employer will have every 12 months an obligation to review realization of actual working hours in cases of variable working hours and, if necessary, amend the working hours to correspond the employer’s actual need.

The proposal also strengthens current governmental program on entrenchment of working hours in situations of variable working hours. According to the proposal, the amendments should take effect as of August 1, 2022.

Keeping a Work Email Address of a Previous Employee Functional and Monitoring It Ruled as Message Interception

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Author: Pihla Knaapila, Associate, and Samuel Kääriäinen, Partner and Head of Employment – Dottir Attorneys Ltd.

On May 5, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled on a case in which the employer’s representative was found guilty of message interception pursuant to the Criminal Code of Finland. The employer’s representative had kept a former employee’s work email address functional after the termination of the employee’s employment and instructed other employees of the company to monitor the messages sent to and from the email address. The employee had given the employer consent to use the email address during the employee’s absences whilst the employment was in force. However, the employee had not given a separate consent for the use of the email address in connection with the termination of the employment or thereafter.

The Supreme Court ruled that the essential elements of message interception were fulfilled regardless of whether the email messages were opened or not. The Supreme Court considered that the criminal liability lied with the employer’s representative as the email address was kept functional and monitored as a result of the representative’s actions.

A Weekly Recruitment Letter Insufficient to Fulfill Employer’s Redeployment Obligation

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Authors: Pihla Knaapila, Associate, and Samuel Kääriäinen, Partner and Head of Employment – Dottir Attorneys Ltd.

On May 13, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that, by sending weekly recruitment letters, the employer had not sufficiently fulfilled its obligation under the Employment Contracts Act to offer other work to the employee during the notice period and therefore, the employer had not had a proper and weighty reason to terminate the employment contract.

The employer had a practice of sending a weekly recruitment letter listing all open positions within the company to all employees working in units with ongoing cooperation negotiations, employees whose employment had already been terminated or changed into a part-time employment and to employees who had been laid off. The Supreme Court ruled that this procedure did not sufficiently fulfill the employer’s redeployment obligation since the open positions listed in the recruitment letters were not personally selected based on the employee’s education, professional skills, and employment history. Also, the fact that the employee had not returned a competence survey form in connection with the recruitment letter did not release the employer from its obligation to proactively search for and offer other suitable work for the employee during the notice period.

Abolition of the Post of Shop Steward by a Nonunion Employer Ruled as Violation of Employees’ Freedom of Association

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Authors: Pihla Knaapila, Associate, and Samuel Kääriäinen, Partner and Head of Employment – Dottir Attorneys Ltd.

On May 20, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the abolition of the post of shop steward fulfilled the essential elements of violation of the freedom of association pursuant to the Criminal Code of Finland.

The representatives of an employer had abolished the post of the shop steward of the company after being notified that the employees had elected a shop steward from amongst them. The Supreme Court considered this to be a violation of the employees’ freedom of association regardless of what was the scope of general applicability of the applicable collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court prioritized the employees’ fundamental right to freedom of association originating from the Constitution of Finland and stated that the right to freedom of association also applies to employees working for an unorganized employer.

Working Hours Clause of an Employment Contract Can Be Weakened by a Collective Agreement Afterwards

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Authors: Pihla Knaapila, Associate, and Samuel Kääriäinen, Partner and Head of Employment – Dottir Attorneys Ltd.

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled on a case regarding a conflict between the working hours clause of an employment contract and the applicable collective agreement. According to the employee’s employment contract as well as the applicable collective agreement, the employee’s weekly working time was 37.5 hours. The working hours clause of the applicable collective agreement was later amended by extending the maximum yearly working hours by 24 hours, and the employer implemented this amendment locally by extending the weekly working hours of the employees by half an hour per week.

According to the Finnish Collective Agreements Act, in case of conflict between any part of an employment contract and an applicable collective agreement, the collective agreement is applied. However, based on the principle of protection of the employee generally applied in employment law, a conflict between different levels of rules governing the terms and conditions of employment should be resolved in favor of the employee. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled that the amended working hours clause of the collective agreement should be applied even though it was not in favor of the employee considering, inter alia, the wording of the amended clause of the collective agreement and the purpose of the Competitiveness Pact concluded by the central labor market organizations on which the amendment of the collective agreement was based.