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
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