The long-awaited new Working Hours Act is entering into force on 1 January 2020. The act has already been criticised for not meeting the demands of Finland’s rapidly changing working life. This critique is understandable, as many elements of the new act—such as working hour banks and larger maximum flex-periods—have been available to employers for years already through various collective bargaining agreements.
3.12.2019
Should We Be Regulating Working Hours or Protecting Free Time?
Tomi Kemppainen & Outi Tähtinen
Related services
Tags
It is clear that legislation is having trouble keeping up with the rapid pace of change in working life. Work is being shaped by accelerating digitalisation and the rise of the platform economy, but also by the fact that the generations now entering the workforce have different expectations towards employers and work. As the line between working time and free time is blurring, perhaps rather than regulating working time, we should be protecting the right to free time. This would help prevent burnout and would ensure that people are able to maintain their enthusiasm for work as long as possible.
It will be interesting to see how eagerly employers adopt the possibilities offered by the new act. Companies could use the new flexibility available to them to become more attractive employers, which would help them hire and hold on to the best employees. We are seeing the same discussion happening in every industry: results should mean more than hours, and mutual trust between the supervisor and employee is the foundation on which everything else is built.
There is every reason to believe that the new opportunities for flexibility offered by the act, particularly flexible working hours, could work well in many workplaces. However, it still remains to be seen whether the new act will provide sufficient answers for today’s work communities or whether we will be writing about another amendment a few years from now.
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
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
HANZA – Acquisition of Milectria
We acted as Finnish legal advisor to HANZA AB in connection with its acquisition of the contract manufacturing division of Milectria, a group of companies specialising in electrical systems for the defence industry. The transaction comprises 100% of the shares in Milectria Oy (Finland), Milectria OÜ (Estonia), and the real estate company Kiinteistö Oy Kanungin Karhu. The transaction is expected to close in September 2025, subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals. Founded in 2008, HANZA is a Swedish mechanical engineering and electronics contract manufacturing company listed on the Nasdaq Stockholm main list. The company operating in seven countries currently has annual sales of approximately SEK 6 billion and approximately 3,100 employees. Milectria is a Finnish contract manufacturer of electrical systems for the defence industry.
Case published 21.7.2025