The Finnish Government has enacted several temporary amendments to employment law due to the coronavirus outbreak. These amendments make it easier for companies to adapt to this sudden change in their operating environment. Our employment law experts have put together this detailed summary of the most important changes.
17.4.2020
Several Temporary Amendments to Employment Law Provide Relief in Covid Crisis
Outi Tähtinen
Related services
The Finnish Government has taken action to provide flexibility to the labour markets and the related legislation to mitigate the effects of the crisis caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19). The amendments to the Employment Contracts Act, the Seafarers’ Employment Contracts Act and the Act on Co-operation within Undertakings entered into force on 1 April 2020 and will remain in force until the end of June.
This temporary legislation will make it easier for companies to adapt to the rapid change in their operating environment and sudden drop in their business.
Accelerated Lay-Off Process: 5 + 5 + 5
Perhaps the most anticipated amendment is the shortening of the notice period for lay-offs: the minimum period is now five days rather than fourteen. The minimum duration of co-operation negotiations relating to lay-offs has also been shortened to five days from the normal fourteen.
It is now possible to complete the lay-off process in 15 days: the negotiation proposal must be given five days before starting negotiations, the negotiations last another five days and the lay-off can start five days from the lay-off notice being issued. The amendment also makes it possible to lay-off fixed-term employees in addition to permanent employees.
Extended Re-employment Obligation to Protect Employees
This temporary legislative amendment will continue to be applied after June 2020 if the lay-off began during the validity of the amendment. This amendment protects employees by extending the employer’s obligation to re-employ employees in the same or similar work to nine months if the employee was terminated on production or financial grounds during the validity of the temporary amendment.
Cancellation during Trial Period also Possible on Production and Financial Grounds
In normal circumstances, it is not possible to cancel an employment relationship during the trial period on production and financial grounds, but one of the temporary amendments has now opened up this possibility.
However, trial period cancellation is still not allowed if it is based on a temporary reduction in work. In such a case, the employees work is not considered to have been permanently reduced in the manner required to apply production and financial grounds.
Collective Agreements and Their Emergency Provisions Supersede the Law
In the context of temporary legislation, it is important to remember that collective agreements and any amendments made to them take precedence over even temporary laws—for better or for worse. Over the past few weeks, numerous relaxations and emergency provisions have been agreed to both normal generally applicable collective agreements. For example, the lay-off notification period in some collective agreements may of shorter or longer than five days. Such temporary changes have already been made to the majority of collective agreements.
What Happens after June?
The above amendments were very welcome, and many employers have already put them to use.
If the current uncertainty is still with us in June, it will be extremely important to extend these temporary amendments. If the crisis caused by the coronavirus drags on, it will also become necessary to look at simplifying and accelerating the co-operation procedures for terminations as well as expanding the opportunities for employers and employees to make local agreements.
——————————————————————————————————
The coronavirus outbreak is a rapidly developing situation. This information reflects the situation at the time it was published 17 April 2020 and is subject to change.
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