25.9.2020
Interpreting the Information Obligation – Efforts to Comply with the Co-operation Act Not Always Enough
Related services
The Act on Co-operation within Undertakings is a procedural act that sets a great many requirements on employers but provides few direct answers. The employer’s duty to provide information involves some particularly difficult questions to interpret.
This blog post covers two recent court decisions that show that it may not be enough for an employer to make an effort to act in compliance with the Co-operation Act. The obligation to pay indemnification can arise if an employer has negligently violated an obligation the contents of which are not provided for in detail in the act.
INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS
When commencing co-operation negotiations to reduce personnel under chapter 8 of the Co-operation Act, the employer must provide the personnel with the following information in the proposal for the commencement of negotiations or at the latest in the first round of negotiations:
Providing sufficient information is a basic requirement for a successful negotiation procedure. The employer’s concrete plan forms the foundation for the negotiations between the parties, and the personnel can present their own alternatives.
TIMING OF NEGOTATIONS IS KEY
Negotiations should not be started too soon, because early on the employer usually does not have sufficient information to fulfil its information obligation. On the other hand, the employer cannot proceed too far in planning, as no actual decision to reduce personnel can be made before commencing co-operation negotiations.
Choosing the correct time to commence negotiations is one thing where an experienced employment lawyer can support an employer even before negotiations start.
CASE 1: REFERENCE TO LEGISLATION NOT SUFFICIENT INFORMATION ON DETERMINATION PRINCIPLES
There are no detailed instructions in legislation, case law or legal literature on exactly what information employers have to provide on the principles used to determine which employees will be subject to personnel effects. Traditionally, a reference to the order of termination of the applicable collective agreement for employees or civil servants has been considered sufficient.
However, exactly what is considered a sufficient description of the determination principles has remained unclear in organisations that are not subject to the order of termination of a collective agreement. The Supreme Court weighed one such situation in decision 2020:7, in which it deemed that a statement to the effect that the order of termination is in compliance with legislation and is non-discriminatory does not give the personnel sufficient information to prepare for the negotiations.
Despite the fact that neither the Co-operation Act nor its legislative materials provide any details on how the determination principles are to be described, the employer in the case was deemed to have acted negligently by making a general reference to acting in compliance with the law, and this gave rise to the obligation to pay indemnification.
However, in its decision the Supreme court did not provide any detailed guidance on what kind of information on the determination principles would be deemed sufficient. The Supreme Court merely stated that ‘with respect to the determination of what employees will be subject to measures, relatively general information on the principles guiding the determination may be sufficient’.
This guidance to provide general information leaves many employers still wanting more concrete instructions. Based on prior case law, a description of the factors that the employer will consider when making the choice would be sufficient. Such factors could include:
It is not necessary to provide a plan of whose employment relationship would be terminated, but to describe what factors the employer will consider take into account when making choices.
CASE 2: COURT OF APPEAL REQUIRED GEOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF PERSONNEL EFFECTS
The Vaasa Court of Appeal issued two decisions on 29 June 2020 concerning assessing the scope of personnel effects. Pursuant to the Co-operation Act, at the start of negotiations, the employer must provide an estimate of the number of terminations, lay-offs and reduction of employment contracts into part-time contracts.
The Court of Appeal took the position that the employer’s estimate must be broken down by personnel group and geographical area if this information is necessary for the negotiations. No such obligation can be found directly in law.
The Court of Appeal justified its position by an interpretation of the Collective Redundancies Directive and by stating that the precision of the information provided by the employer must be assessed in relation to the purpose of the co-operation proceedings. According to the Court of Appeal, the employer must make a case-by-case determination of whether a geographic breakdown is information that is necessary for the purpose of the co-operation procedure. For many employers, this guidance also raises more questions without providing certainty that they have fulfilled their obligation to provide information.
In the Court of Appeal’s decisions, the employer had provided its estimate of the need for reductions by personnel group, but because it was a large company with business operation in different municipalities, the Court of Appeal found that the employer should have estimated the geographical breakdown of the personnel reductions.
Because the employer had not done so, it was ordered to pay indemnification—despite the fact that the Co-operation Act does not contain an express provision imposing such an obligation. The Court of Appeal’s judgments are not yet final (as at 21 August 2020).
FEWER DETAILS AND MORE GENUINE DIALOGUE IN THE FUTURE?
Some of the problems in the current Co-operation Act from the perspective of employers are that the act is open to interpretation, contains complex procedural rules and imposes harsh consequences for breaching them.
It is difficult for employers and employees to have an real dialogue and negotiate in the spirit of co-operation when the procedure easily becomes bogged down in details that the employer may not be able to gain certainty of from the law despite best efforts.
The Co-operation Act is planned to be reformed to better realise the spirit of co-operation between employers and employees. Instead of detailed procedural regulations, the spirit of co-operation could be better served through more general regulation. The new act is also intended to add flexibility through allowing procedural rules to be deviated from by agreement in a national collective agreement or in a co-operation agreement between the employer and personnel.
The government proposal on the amendment was supposed to be published during the spring of 2020, but has been delayed by the coronavirus pandemic.
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