For an increasing number of people, work is no longer tied to a specific time or place. Technology has made it possible to work at any time of day and equally well whether at the office or a cabin in the woods. More and more workplaces value the result of work over working hours, and responsible employers are also looking to make it easier to combine work with family life. The new Working Hours Act entering into force in Finland from the start of 2020 offers employers and employees tools to find solutions tailored to their individual workplaces.
25.11.2019
Finland’s New Working Hours Act – New Tools for a New Decade
Mikko Hanni
Related services
Flexible Work Lets the Employee Decide
One of the most significant reforms is the flexible working hours system. In this new system, the employer and employee agree a working hours clause stating that the employee is free to choose the time and location for at least half of the working hours. This model is a good fit, for example, for expert positions in which the employer defines the goal, but the employee decides where and when they work to achieve that goal. By contrast, the flexible working hours model is not well suited to customer service or factory work where the employer dictates the time and place for work.
Working Hour Reserve for Working Hours, Benefits and Free Time
The second major reform is the introduction of working hour reserves. Reserves are a way to integrate work and free time in which employees can save up and combine working hours, free time and monetary benefits converted into free time. The employer enters into an agreement on adopting a working hour reserve with the employees’ representative, but each employee can decide independently whether to transfer items into the reserve. If the working hour reserve allows it, the employee can transfer additional hours and overtime hours; flexitime hours (within the limits set by the act); unpaid evening, night and Sunday work hours based on collective bargaining agreements; as well as other benefits converted into working hours into the working hour reserve.
Changes to Flexitime Accrual and Periods
The regulation of flexitime is also changing. As of the start of 2020, the accrual of overrun hours cannot exceed 60 hours and over a four-month period, and the shortfall cannot exceed 20 hours over the same period. The maximum overrun and shortfall under the current act is 40 hours. Furthermore, the daily flexitime limit has been extended from three hours to four hours, and the evening flexitime period can be separate from the rest of the working day, for example from 20:00–22:00. It is worth noting that in many respects national labour market organisations can establish different flexitime arrangements in collective bargaining agreements.
Extension of Regular Daily Working Hours Increased to Two Hours
Employers and employees can agree on a maximum extension to daily working hours of two hours, unless prevented by a collective bargaining agreement. For example, the working time could be 6 hours one day and 10 hours another, but the working hours have to balance out to a maximum of 40 hours over a four-month period.
Flexible working time solutions that can be tailored to the individual workplace can help companies attract and retain the best talent. At best, flexible solutions can provide a competitive edge. It is worth keeping in mind, however, that there are prerequisites and limits for local working hour solutions, and it is worth double-checking what they are from the new act or from an employment law specialist.
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
Tomi Kemppainen, Kim Parviainen & Eija Warma-Lehtinen
Mikko Hanni & Outi Tähtinen
Eija Warma-Lehtinen & Ville Kukkonen
Latest references
Finnish Construction Management Consultancy — District Court Dismisses charge in occupational safety offence case concerning a safety coordinator
We successfully represented a Finnish construction management consultancy and a safety coordinator employed by the company in criminal proceedings concerning an alleged occupational safety and health offence. The prosecutor sought a penalty for an alleged breach of occupational safety regulations. The charge arose from a fall accident at a construction site where our client acted as the safety coordinator appointed by the developer. We assessed the scope of the safety coordinator’s duties in relation to the responsibilities of the main contractor, as well as how our client had fulfilled their obligations in practice. We demonstrated that our client had acted with due care and in full compliance with their duties throughout the planning, preparation and execution of the construction project. The District Court of Eastern Uusimaa dismissed the charge against our client. The Court held that our client, in their capacity as safety coordinator, had duly fulfilled the occupational safety obligations incumbent on the developer during the planning and preparation phases of the construction project and had not been aware of the fall protection deficiency identified at the site. The judgment is final insofar as our client is concerned.
Case published 22.6.2026
G&W Electric – Acquisition of Safegrid
We advised G&W Electric with its acquisition of Safegrid Oy, a leading provider of intelligent grid monitoring solutions based in Finland. The acquisition accelerates G&W Electric’s long-term strategy to integrate intelligent monitoring and predictive analytics into its power distribution portfolio, strengthening its offering to utility customers worldwide. Founded in 1905 and headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois, G&W Electric is a global leader in innovative power grid solutions, with a presence in over 100 countries. The company is known for advanced load and fault interrupting switches, reclosers, sensors, system protection equipment, power grid automation, intelligent grid monitoring, and transmission and distribution cable accessories. Safegrid is a Finnish technology company headquartered in Espoo, Finland. The company develops the Intelligent Grid System®, a grid monitoring solution that combines instant-on wireless sensors with advanced analytics to deliver real-time insight into grid conditions, enabling utilities to identify emerging issues, anticipate failures, and reduce outage duration across medium and high voltage distribution and transmission networks.
Case published 8.5.2026
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