3.6.2021

From Remote to Hybrid Work – What Do Employers Need to Know?

Last spring, many Finns followed authority recommendations and started working from home rather than commuting to the office.  The amount of remote work skyrocketed almost overnight, particularly in consultant and expert work.

As organisations are now beginning to transition back to normal, remote work will no longer be based on emergency circumstances and authority recommendations. The current transition involves a number of noteworthy employment law issues that employers should be aware of.

Agreeing on Remote Work

Remote work is flexible work that is done either full time or part time outside the actual workplace and is based on voluntary, agreed rules. Remote work is subject to the same employment law regulations as work done traditionally at the workplace.

Voluntary remote work does not necessarily require a separate employment agreement. However, we recommend that employers draft written remote work instructions, because in employment relationships of over one month, the employer has a statutory obligation to report the key terms of employment.

Written instructions help avoid ambiguity about the terms of employment. In a dispute, ambiguity is easily interpreted to the detriment of the employer. If unwritten practices continue for a long time, they could become established terms of the employment relationship, and the employer will no longer be able to unilaterally change them.

Remote work instructions should cover at least the following matters:

Can Employees Be Obligated to Work Remotely?

When talking about remote work, the question sometimes arises of whether employers can obligate their employees to work remotely. As a rule, the place of employment agreed in the employment agreement is binding on the employer with respect to remote work. too. 

This means that the employer cannot in normal circumstances unilaterally obligate an employee to work remotely unless this has been agreed in the employment agreement. An exception to this could be if the employer decides to give up a fixed place of business entirely.

This could create production-related grounds referred to in section 7(3) of the Employment Contracts Act. The plan for transitioning to remote work and giving up a fixed place of business would have to be discussed in co-operation negotiations and could be adopted by complying with notice periods.

Remote Work and Equal Treatment

Employers have an obligation to treat their employees equally unless there is an acceptable cause for different treatment based on the duties and position of the employees. Remote work rules and instructions can be different for employees in different positions as long as there are objective and acceptable reasons for different treatment.

Acceptable reasons can include the contents and nature of work duties as well as the kind of work performance.

The employer can also set limits on remote work. For example, the employer can require that there must always be a certain number of employees at the workplace or forbid remote work if an employee refuses to comply with the employer’s remote work instructions.

Remote Work Abroad

Employers are under no obligation to allow remote work from abroad. Employers are entitled to require that their employees work remotely from a location where they are able to return to the workplace within a specified time limit. The employer is also entitled to require that work duties are performed during regular working hours or flexible working hours. Time zone differences do not justify deviating from agreed working hours.

Temporarily working from abroad has no impact on the fact that Finnish employment law is applied to the employment relationship. When remote work from abroad is longer in duration, the employer must determine which country’s employment law is applied to the employment relationship.

It is also extremely important for both the employer and employee to find out in advance how the employee’s social security is determined while working abroad, i.e. which country’s social security provisions apply to the remote work.

Occupational Safety and Health Act and Coping with Work

In remote work, the employer’s ability to supervise employment relationships and employee workloads is limited. This highlights the employee’s own responsibility to ensure, for example, sufficient rest time. The employer should also use, for example, surveys and discussions to remind employees to look after their wellbeing.

The employment accidents insurance taken out by the employer also applies to remote work, but in remote work it is more tied to the workspace than at the actual workplace. This is important to keep in mind and, if necessary, the employer and employee should supplement the statutory accident insurance with a voluntary insurance policy.

Latest references

We advised Efima Oyj on the sale of its AI business to Better Care Technologies Oy. The transaction included Efima’s Moiva AI platform developed for the care sector, the related technology and brand, customer contracts, and the experts working in the business. Efima is a Finnish digital company that supports the sustainable growth of large and mid-sized companies by streamlining their business processes and by creating competitive advantage through the innovative use of artificial intelligence and data. The company has nearly 200 experts based in Helsinki and Tampere. 
Case published 21.9.2026
We advised Neoen Renewables Finland Oy, part of the French Neoen Group, in its sale of a data centre project to a consortium consisting of international data centre developers and operators. This marked Neoen’s first data centre development project in Finland. Founded in 2008, Neoen is one of the world’s leading independent renewable energy producers. The company operates in 15 countries. It develops, finances, builds, owns, and operates solar power plants, wind farms, and battery storage systems. Neoen Group is owned by global alternative asset manager Brookfield Corporation.
Case published 17.9.2026
We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi in connection with their investment in VEV, a leading provider of commercial fleet electrification solutions. The investment, led by Jolt Capital with Tesi as co-investor, will support VEV’s next phase of growth and expansion across Europe. As part of the transaction, VEV became an independent company following the acquisition of Vitol’s stake in the business. Founded by Vitol, VEV provides integrated fleet electrification solutions combining fleet strategy, charging infrastructure, energy supply and operational services. Through its VEV IQ platform, the company supports more than 6,000 commercial electric vehicles across Europe and has been deployed across more than 600 sites spanning the transport, logistics and waste sectors. Jolt Capital is a private equity firm focused on growth investments in European deeptech companies. Tesi is a Finnish state-owned investment company that promotes Finnish business and economic growth through investments. We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi on the equity financing and structuring aspects of the transaction. International law firm Goodwin advised the investors on the acquisition of VEV.
Case published 10.9.2026
VR-Group Plc is a transport and logistics group owned by the Finnish State, operating passenger and freight rail transport in Finland with activities also in the Swedish market. VR Group provides passenger, logistics and maintenance services with over 160 years’ experience in developing responsible transport of the future. We advise VR Group in intellectual property matters as part of the company’s wider brand protection efforts. Our assignments have included advice on copyright, design rights and trademarks, focusing on the protection of the company’s visual identity – including its distinctive green colour – in connection with transport services as part of a comprehensive IP protection strategy. VR Group’s consistent brand building has also received recognition, including the Finland Chamber of Commerce’s Brand of the Year award in 2026. In the competition, brands were viewed comprehensively from various perspectives, including their story, strategic role, brand renewal ability and intellectual property protection. The jury found that VR had understood the importance of the protection of its brand as part of a comprehensive business strategy. 
Case published 9.9.2026