The benefits that local bargaining would provide Finland’s competitiveness and economic growth are widely recognised. Most recently, this subject was brought up by the experts of the Ministry of Finance, who stated in a report published in February that Finland’s economic growth needs a great deal more company-specific flexibility with respect to the regulation of employment.
25.2.2021
Finland Needs to Expand Local Bargaining – Here’s How to Do It
Outi Tähtinen
Related services
This is an important issue. In order to get past just recognising the issue, it is important to understand what local bargaining is and what opportunities Finland’s current employment legislation provides for it.
Local Bargaining Often Blocked by Shop Steward Requirements in Collective Agreements
Local bargaining ultimately encompasses all agreements made at the workplace. However, public debate surrounding local bargaining often revolves around what collective bargaining agreements say about local bargaining. This is understandable, as local bargaining is often blocked by the provisions of collective agreements.
Many collective agreements provide that concluding a local agreement requires that the workplace have a shop steward. The selection of a shop steward is based on the provisions of the collective agreement that only obligate employers that are part of an employer organisation, i.e. organised employers. The shop steward represents an entire personnel group despite being elected by only those employees who are union members. This is true even if only a fraction of the employees at a workplace are union members. In practice, local bargaining is not possible if the collective agreement requires that a shop steward be a party in local bargaining, but the workplace has for some reason chosen to not appoint one.
The current system does not provide sufficient support for an alternative in which employees could be represented by an elected representative (who pursuant to the Employment Contracts Act is the primary representative of employees of non-organised employers) or other representative chosen by the employees from amongst themselves. The selection of these kinds of representatives is supported by the fact that they more fully represent all of the employees at the workplace, because all of the employees can participate in electing them, regardless of union membership.
Another odd feature of local bargaining in Finland relates to the fact that semi-mandatory provisions of employment legislation—such as sick pay, grounds for lay-off and the re-employment obligation—can only be agreed upon to the detriment of employees in national collective agreements between employer and employee organisations. Current legislation does not recognise that an employer that has committed to a company-level collective agreement, or an employer that has no collective agreement at all, could conclude an agreement on these provisions with their personnel. Furthermore, non-organised employers are not permitted to apply collective agreement provisions concerning local bargaining at all if they concern semi-mandatory legislation.
The Boundaries of Local Bargaining Need Reform
The future of local bargaining will depend a great deal on reforming the boundaries set for it so that they meet the needs of modern working-life. Today, the fact that a labour organisation operates nation-wide does not automatically mean that it has the best understanding of the minimum level required by the employees at a given workplace or of what the best end result would be. There are no solid grounds for treating non-organised employers differently with respect to local bargaining.
The legislative materials of the current Employment Contracts Act from the year 2000 justifies the unequal position of unorganised employers with the limited resources of occupational safety and health authorities. On the other hand, even back then the legislative materials stated that it is necessary to monitor the development of local bargaining and take legislative action as necessary. The provisions concerning local bargaining in collective agreements have, indeed, developed in the intervening years, which is a good thing. For example, few collective agreements from twenty years ago made it possible to swap holiday bonuses for extra leave based on local bargaining even when the employee wanted to do so.
Expanding the use of local bargaining would require efficient and effective legal remedies in case one of the parties breaches the agreement. Nevertheless, what needs a shakeup is the idea that a national organisation or a person representing just some of the employees at a workplace is always the best party to assess whether local bargaining is necessary at the workplace and what is in the interests of the employees at a given workplace.
Local bargaining should be expanded to be available to all employers. This in not just sensible, but also a more sustainable solution from the perspective of the freedom of association guaranteed by Finland’s constitution. Furthermore, it should be possible for a personnel representative other than a shop steward elected by the members of a particular union to be the party to local bargaining. The employees’ day-to-day need for protection at the workplace does not always align with what unions want to protect.
Latest insights
Article published 3.3.2026 – Employment
The threshold for dismissal is lowered: what should be taken into account in practice?
Article published 6.5.2024 – Employment
Outsourcing company functions – four key points for success
Article published 15.3.2024 – Employment
Five questions concerning industrial actions
Article published 29.11.2023 – Employment
Whistleblowing and data protection – frequently asked questions
Aleksandra Särkelä
Tomi Kemppainen, Kim Parviainen & Eija Warma-Lehtinen
Mikko Hanni & Outi Tähtinen
Eija Warma-Lehtinen & Ville Kukkonen
Latest references
Aurevia and Labquality – Strategic reorganisation
We advised Aurevia Oy, a portfolio company of French private equity sponsor Mérieux Equity Partners, in a strategic reorganisation that involved splitting Aurevia and its parent companies into two independent groups of companies and reorganisation of its existing debt-financing arrangements. Following the reorganisation, the newly formed Aurevia continues as a leading provider of Contract Research Organization (CRO) and Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs (QARA) services, while the newly formed Labquality focuses on delivering External Quality Assessment (EQA) services. Aurevia serves operators in the medical devices, in vitro diagnostics and pharmaceutical sectors. Labquality’s customers include clinical laboratories and social and healthcare organisations. The reorganisation positions Aurevia and Labquality to allocate investments more effectively, accelerate growth within their respective customer segments, and respond to evolving market and client needs. The transaction was implemented through multiple parallel demergers and required comprehensive legal and tax structuring across several jurisdictions. Our team supported Aurevia throughout the planning and implementation phases, covering corporate, tax, employment law, and regulatory matters, as well as the optimisation of each group’s financing structure.
Case published 7.4.2026
VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
Life Finland – Administration of bankruptcy estate
Life Finland Oy, a retailer of natural products, other health-related products and cosmetics, filed for bankruptcy on its own initiative in June 2025, and our attorney, counsel Elina Pesonen was appointed administrator of the bankruptcy estate. Life Finland Oy was part of the international Life Group, and its parent company Life Europe AB was declared bankrupt in Sweden in June 2025. When declared bankrupt, Life Finland Oy had over 30 operational stores and almost 170 employees across Finland. In addition to the premises of the operational stores, the company had several other leased premises, such as retail premises it was vacating as well as office and warehouse spaces. The bankruptcy estate organised clearance sales in all of the company’s stores. The shutdown of the stores and the clearance sales were efficiently carried out in approximately two weeks in cooperation with the company’s country manager, regional managers and sales staff. The clearance sales yielded a significant liquidation result, and consumers bought nearly the entire inventory. The administration of the bankruptcy estate has required expertise in many areas. The proceedings have dealt with specialised issues such as cash pooling arrangements, intellectual property, franchising agreements, employment relationships and consumer creditors. In addition, the proceedings are notably international, as the estate administrator has organised the shutdown of operations and the liquidation of assets in close cooperation with the estate administrators of the Swedish Group companies. The cooperation has included, among other things, exploring opportunities for selling the business, the sale of intangible rights and the coordination of intra-group agreements.
Case published 9.12.2025
Merger of Oomi and Lumme Energia
We are acting as the joint legal advisor to Oomi Oy and Lumme Energia Oy in a transaction whereby Lumme Energia will merge with Oomi. As from the completion of the merger, the combined entity will be the largest electricity retail and service company in the Finnish market. In 2024, Oomi reported a turnover of EUR 373.9 million and had approximately 110 employees. Lumme Energia’s turnover for the same year was approximately EUR 314.6 million and it had approximately 50 employees. The transaction is primarily driven by the recent developments in the electricity market and the strategic goal to develop competitive products and services. Another key objective is to further enhance the customer experience, which is a shared value between the two companies. As a result of the merger, Lumme Energia’s customers will transfer to Oomi, and Lumme Energia will become one of Oomi’s shareholders. The completion of the transaction is subject to an approval by the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority.
Case published 29.8.2025