26.2.2020

Coronavirus Epidemic: FAQ for Finnish Employers

The coronavirus (COVID-19) that originated in China has become an epidemic that countries are attempting to contain by restricting movement. The situation raises a number of questions at workplaces. What happens if employees are quarantined abroad? Can companies lay off or terminate employees if the epidemic harms their business? We answer some frequently asked questions below.

You might also be interested in:  Coronavirus – Secure Your Business-Critical Issues.

Absence from Work Permitted, but Not Necessarily Paid

If an employee misses work, for example, due to a cancelled flight, quarantine or other mandatory reason relating to the epidemic, the absence is permissible, and employment law sanctions cannot be imposed on the employee due to it.

However, even when there is an acceptable reason for it, the absence is not necessarily paid. Employers are not legally obligated to pay wages or salary for the duration of an absence that is due to a quarantine or isolation imposed by the authorities unless the employee themself is sick.

Though employers are not obligated to pay, some employers have continued to pay their employees if they have been caught by a quarantine while on a business trip. If Kela grants the employee an infectious disease allowance due to a quarantine, the allowance will be paid to the employer to the extent the employer has paid the employee during the absence. The allowance covers the full loss of income and has no deductible period.

Annual Holiday Accrues During Quarantine

From the perspective of the accrual of annual holiday, a quarantine imposed by the authorities is equated to being at work, and employees earn holiday normally for the duration of the quarantine. The same rule applies if an employee is placed in isolation, for example, due to a family member having fallen ill.

Layoffs Require Cooperation Negotiations

Some companies have been forced to consider layoffs and other cost-saving measures due to the disruptions the epidemic has caused to their business. However, an epidemic is not considered a particularly weighty and unforeseeable event that would allow employers to take action without cooperation negotiations. It is important for companies to remember to start cooperation procedures as soon as they begin planning measures that could lead to layoffs or terminations.

Update Your Company’s Instructions

Employers should provide their employees instructions on what to do if they fall ill. For example, the Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK) recommends that employees should be allowed to take a sick leave of a few days without a doctor’s certificate during the epidemic.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act obligates employers to ensure the safety of employees even when on overseas business trips. Employers need to keep an eye on authority instructions and travel restrictions and update their workplace instructions as needed. It is worth making sure whether your company’s travel insurance covers additional costs caused by the coronavirus. Employees going on business trips should be given detailed instructions on what to do if they believe they have been infected during the trip or after returning home.

It is also a good idea to review your remote working practices and consider how to arrange work if the epidemic were to lead to a widespread quarantine in Finland.

Latest references

We delivered two AI workshops for Fortum Corporation’s Mergers and Acquisitions team, with both legal and business professionals participating. The sessions combined fundamental AI principles with custom use cases for commercially available AI tools tailored to Fortum’s needs. We also presented a bespoke solution merging AI with a script-based tool developed by our Legal Tech team, enabling a more automated way of working. Our experts conducted the training drawing on their legal background and leading experience in this emerging field of legal technology. Participants particularly appreciated the clarity and relevance of the implementations demonstrated. ‘C&S delivered an excellent, well-structured series of workshops, with directly applicable takeaways,’ says Sabina Hautaviita, Legal Counsel for M&A at Fortum.
Case published 9.3.2026
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
We are assisting CapMan Growth in its significant investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku, a Finnish gym chain known for its high-quality self-service facilities and excellent value for money. The investment will further strengthen Liikku’s position as a market leader and support the continued execution of its growth strategy. Liikku is one of Finland’s leading fitness chains, with more than 70 locations across the country serving nearly 90,000 members. The company’s concept is to offer high-quality self-service gyms at an exceptionally competitive price point which, combined with strong operational efficiency, provides a solid foundation for profitable growth. The company’s main shareholder is COR Group, a long-time partner of CapMan Growth, and a Finnish health and wellness conglomerate known for active ownership and long-term value creation. CapMan Growth is a leading Finnish growth investor that makes significant investments in entrepreneur-led growth companies with a turnover of €10–200 million. CapMan Growth is part of CapMan, which is a leading Nordic private equity investor engaged in active value creation work. CapMan has been listed on the Helsinki Stock Exchange since 2001.
Case published 27.2.2026
Castrén & Snellman successfully assisted Terrafame Ltd in environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area, on which the Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision on 12 February 2026 (KHO 366/2026 and 367/2026). The changes made to the decisions of the Vaasa Administrative Court as a result of Terrafame’s appeals, enable the company to implement its new strategy and develop its operations as planned. The decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court brought the nearly ten-year-long permit process to a close.
Case published 20.2.2026