Finland’s Parliament is currently considering an amendment to the Employment Contracts Act and Seafarers’ Employment Contracts Act that has been in the pipeline for a long time. The amendment would obligate employers to compensate employees for non-competition agreements that extend beyond the end of the employment relationship. This obligation would not depend on the duration of the non-competition clause or on the employee’s duties.
5.10.2021
Reform of Employment Contract Non-Competition Clauses – Checklist for Employers
Suvi Kettunen & Mikko Hanni
Related services
The consideration of the bill is likely to continue in Parliament in the autumn of 2021, and the amendment is proposed to enter into force already on 1 January 2022.
The bill has generated a great deal of questions among our clients. Here is our FAQ relating to the draft amendment.
1. Who can employers make a non-competition agreement with in the future and what is the maximum duration?
The amendment would not change the group of people with whom a non-competition agreement valid after the end of the employment relationship could be lawfully made. To be valid, a non-competition agreement would continue to require a particularly weighty reason relating to the employer’s operations or to the employment agreement. Such a reason could exist, for example, with respect to employees working in product development or if the employer has an interest in retaining customers.
The maximum duration of a non-competition agreement would also remain unchanged. The main rule would be that a non-competition agreement could be valid for a maximum of one year after the end of the employment relationship.
2. What does the obligation to pay compensation mean in practice?
The obligation to pay compensation is an obligation of the employer to compensate employees for a non-competition agreement that remains in force after the end of the employment relationship. According to the bill, the compensation would be determined as follows:
The proposed compensation would not be payable if the employment relationship ended for a reason attributable to the employer. Termination on financial and production grounds is one example of such a situation.
Compensation also would not have to be paid if the employer has already paid reasonable compensation for an over six-month non-competition agreement as defined in current legislation or if the payment of such reasonable compensation has begun before the new legislation enters into force.
3. Can the employer decide to waive the non-competition obligation in order to avoid having to pay compensation?
Following the amendment, the employer would be entitled to terminate a non-competition agreement extending beyond the end of the employment relationship if circumstances change during the relationship, for example, if the employee’s duties change.
The notice period would be at least one-third of the duration of the non-competition obligation, but no less than two months. However, the employer would not be entitled to unilaterally terminate a non-competition agreement once the employee has ended their employment relationship.
4. Does the compensation obligation also apply to non-competition agreements predating the amendment?
The new legislation would be mandatory and would also apply to non-competition agreements entered into prior to the entry into force of the amendment.
However, there would be a one-year transitional period before the provisions concerning the compensation obligation become applicable to non-competition agreements that predate the entry into force of amendment. Employers could also terminate such non-competition agreements without notice during the one-year transitional period.
5. What should employers do to prepare for the amendment and when do they need to act?
The proposed compensation obligation will create a new personnel cost item for employers, which highlights the importance of considering the necessity of non-competition agreements even more carefully than before. The transitional period means that now is a good time to review your non-competition agreements in light of the upcoming amendment.
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