Finland’s aim is to become a leader in equality. The family leave reform issued by Parliament is one of the means to achieve this goal. The family leave reform is also based on the so called EU Work-life Balance Directive ((EU) 2019/1158). The main objectives of the family leave reform are
27.5.2022
The Family Leave Reform: Longer Leave with More Equal Allocation
Mikko Hanni & Suvi Kettunen
Related services
Tags
1. to allocate family leaves and care responsibilities in families equally between the parents
2. to strengthen non-discrimination and equality in working life
3. to reduce the gender pay gap.
The family leave reform removes some currently used terms such as maternity leave, special maternity leave, paternity leave and parental leave from employment legislation. Terms that will replace them include
The reform increases the total parental allowance entitlement, and the parental allowance days are allocated more equally to both parents. The family leave reform also includes amendments to the protection of pregnant employees and employees who have recently given birth as well as amendments to partial parental leave and carers’ leave.
This post highlights some of the most significant amendments of the reform in relation to pregnancy and parental leave.
The duration of leave is based on the Health Insurance Act
The duration of pregnancy and parental leave will be tied to the durations of pregnancy and parental allowance periods pursuant to the Health Insurance Act, as is the case in the current legislation. Employees are therefore entitled to receive income-related parental allowance for the duration of the parental leave and income-related pregnancy allowance for the duration of the pregnancy leave. Restrictions related to taking leave will be provided for in the Employment Contracts Act in the future as well.
Pregnancy leave
Employees will in the future be entitled to an uninterrupted pregnancy leave of 40 weekdays. Similarly to the current legislation, an employee’s pregnancy leave starts 30 days before the expected due date, unless the employer and the employee agree on a later starting date. The pregnancy leave must, however, be started 14 weekdays before the expected due date at the latest.
If the child is born prematurely over 30 weekdays before the expected due date, the employee will be entitled to start the pregnancy leave from the time of the childbirth.
Parental leave
In the future, parents will be entitled to parental leave of a maximum of 320 weekdays when a child is born or adopted. The right to parental leave days will, however, be divided evenly between the parents so that both parents receive a parental leave allocation of 160 weekdays. A parent may donate a maximum of 63 days of their own parental leave allocation to the other parent, other guardian of the child, the parent’s spouse or the other parent’s spouse. As a rule, the number of parental leave days is child-specific, and the days must be used before the child reaches the age of two.
Employees can take parental leave in up to four separate periods of at least 12 weekdays. The employee and the employer can, however, agree that the employee can take parental leave in more periods or in shorter periods. Even though an employee is also entitled to parental allowance for the second child or more, the employee can, however, only take up to four parental leave periods during one calendar year. If a parental leave period continues past the end of a calendar year, that period is deemed to belong to the allocation of the calendar year during which it started.
Similarly to the current legislation, the parents may be on parental leave or on pregnancy leave and parental leave at the same time based on the same child for up to 18 weekdays.
Notice periods
The deadlines for notifying the employer of pregnancy or parental leave will remain the same as under the current legislation. Therefore, the employer must be notified of pregnancy or parental leave primarily two months before the planned starting date of the leave at the latest in the future as well. If the duration of the leave is 12 weekdays at most, the notice period is only one month.
Entry into force
Even though the provisions related to pregnancy and parental leave enter into force on 1 August 2022, they will only become applicable if the expected due date is on 4 September 2022 or later. This means that if the expected due date is, for example, on 10 August 2022, the current provisions on maternity, paternity and parental leave will still be applied for that child.
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