Many employers will at some point leverage temporary agency workers in getting through peak periods or covering absences. As the name implies, temporary agency workers typically fill a short-term, temporary need. The worker is employed by the temporary agency that, among other things, pays the employee’s wages and is chiefly responsible for the employer’s obligations. However, the user company also has certain rights and obligations it should be aware of when considering the use of temporary agency workforce.
22.2.2023
Temporary agency work – 5 things all employers should be aware of
Suvi Kettunen
Related services
Check the applicable collective agreement
Among other provisions on temporary agency work, many collective agreements include restrictions on the use of temporary agency work in covering peak periods or work that cannot be performed by the company’s own employees, for example. It is therefore important to review the provisions on temporary agency work of the applicable collective agreement on a case-by-case basis before deciding on the use of temporary agency work.
Review the provisions on temporary agency work under the Employment Contracts Act
Under the Employment Contracts Act, in temporary agency work, the right to direct and supervise the work is transferred to the user company together with the employer’s obligations directly related to the performance of the work and its arrangement. In order for the temporary agency to fulfil its own employer’s obligations, such as paying the proper wages, the user company has a legal obligation to provide the temporary agency worker’s employer with any and all information necessary for the fulfilment of these obligations. In light of the special characteristics of the arrangement, the user company and the temporary agency should outline the distribution of obligations as clearly as possible in the temporary agency work agreement.
The Employment Contracts Act determines the applicable collective agreement and the minimum terms of employment for the temporary agency worker’s employment relationship. The Act also contains provisions that specifically govern temporary agency work, including the following:
Ensure the occupational safety and health of temporary agency workers
Even though temporary agency workers are not directly employed by the user company, the user company is still responsible for their occupational safety and health in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Before the temporary agency work begins, the user company must define the required professional skills and the special characteristics of the work in sufficient detail. The user company must inform the temporary agency of these details, and the temporary agency then has to pass this information to the temporary agency worker and ensure that the worker has the adequate professional skills, experience and suitability for the work to be performed.
The user company is also responsible for introducing the temporary agency worker to the work, the conditions at the workplace and the occupational health and safety measures, among other things. When necessary, the user company also has to familiarise the worker with occupational safety and health co-operation and communication and with the occupational health care arrangements. To the extent necessary, the user company must also notify occupational health care and the occupational safety and health representative at the workplace when temporary agency work begins.
Account for the use of temporary agency work in co-operation processes
The Act on Co-operation within Undertakings applies to all employers who regularly employ at least 20 employees. When the Act is applied, the employer is responsible, for example, for the following co-operation obligations with respect to temporary agency work:
Procure the information and reports required under the Contractor’s Liability Act
Before signing an agreement on using temporary agency workers, the user company must, as a rule, ensure that the temporary agency fulfils its legal obligations. In practice, this means procuring the information and reports required under the Contractor’s Liability Act (such as a Trade Register extract or equivalent information as well as information on tax payment and employer register status, the applicable collective agreement, and pension insurance premiums paid) from the temporary agency or the appropriate service provider.
This blog was originally published as a HENRY guest blog.
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
Tomi Kemppainen, Kim Parviainen & Eija Warma-Lehtinen
Mikko Hanni & Outi Tähtinen
Eija Warma-Lehtinen & Ville Kukkonen
Latest references
Finnish Construction Management Consultancy — District Court Dismisses charge in occupational safety offence case concerning a safety coordinator
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
G&W Electric – Acquisition of Safegrid
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
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