14.9.2020

Occupational Safety in the Time of COVID-19 – What Every Employer Needs to Know

With over 20 million confirmed coronavirus infections worldwide, the debate in Finland has turned to whether a second wave of infections is on its way or whether it is already here. Whatever the case, at this point it seems unlikely that society would be locked down as fully as last spring.

The pandemic has given rise to many questions among our clients. In this post, we cover the some of the most common questions relating to occupational safety.

Can an Employee Leave off Work if They Are Afraid of the Coronavirus or Are in a High-Risk Group?

An employee’s fear of contracting the coronavirus is not, as a rule, a reason to leave off work. The Occupational Safety and Health Act gives an employee the right to leave off work if the work causes a serious risk to an employee’s own or other employees’ life or health.

However, the threshold for applying this provision is quite high. The right to leave off work can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances in which the risk is real and serious. Having an underlying condition that increases the risk of contracting the serious form of the coronavirus does not automatically entitle an employee to leave off work.

Furthermore, the right to leave off work is not available if the risk can be avoided by improving occupational safety. Indeed, occupational safety measures taken by the employer are always the primary means of resolving this kind of situation.

What Occupational Safety Tools Does the Employer Have?

Employers are required to take care of the safety and health of their employees while at work. The point of departure is that the employer must identify risks and hazards in the work environment and seek to eliminate them or, if this is not possible, minimise them. Based on a risk assessment, the employer must plan how the risks caused by the coronavirus in the workplace will be managed.

The concrete measures available vary depending on the working conditions. When planning measures, employers should also take into account personal factors relating to employees, such as being in a high-risk group. Careful consideration should also be given to how binding to make the measures: the employer must decide whether measures at the workplace are recommendations or whether to exercise its right of direction to make them binding orders.

Concrete measures can include:

For example, the risk assessment may show that minimising hazards requires an obligation to wear a mask at the workplace. In this case, it is the employer’s responsibility to provide the employees with instructions on using masks, to procure masks for the workplace and to bear the costs relating to the masks.

What Are the Employees’ Obligations?

Employees are obligated to comply with their employer’s instructions and to otherwise promote the safety of the work environment through their own actions. In any work community, there may be individual employees who react negatively to new instructions. It is important that employers reinforce their work safety orders using the measures available under employment law.

Summary of Employer Work Safety Obligations

The question of whether an employer has fulfilled its work safety obligations is often tested in trials.

In short, the work safety measures that employers should take due to the coronavirus are:

Employers also have to take the coronavirus into account as part of the company’s occupational safety processes. Now might be a good time to review your company’s occupational safety processes as a whole and make sure they are up to date.

 

Eveliina Tammela
Lisa Litvin

Latest references

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
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
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
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