Browse through brief employment and labor law updates from around the globe. Contact a Littler attorney for more information or view our global locations.

View all Q2 2021 Global Guide Quarterly updates   Download full Q2 2021 Global Guide Quarterly

Employer’s Post-Employment Obligation to Re-Employ Dismissed Employees

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Authors: Samuel Kääriäinen, Partner and Emma Mäkeläinen, Associate - Dottir Attorneys Ltd.

On June 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Finland ruled on a case relating to employer’s post-employment obligation to re-employ employees dismissed due to financial and production-related grounds. The re-employment obligation actualizes if the employer needs to recruit employees to same or similar positions in which the dismissed employees worked during a period of four or six months after the employment ended.

In this case, during the re-employment period, the employer became aware of a likely need to recruit a new employee due to a recent resignation, but the actual recruitment decision was made after the re-employment period had ended. The Supreme Court ruled that the employer did not violate its obligation to re-employ when the employer made the actual decision regarding the new recruitments after the obligation expired. The Supreme Court concluded the employer had not postponed the decision-making beyond the end of the re-employment period merely to evade the re-employment obligation.

Applicability of Collective Agreement Based on Company’s Industry

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Authors: Samuel Kääriäinen, Partner and Emma Mäkeläinen, Associate - Dottir Attorneys Ltd.

On June 14, 2021, the Supreme Court of Finland ruled on a case relating to employer’s right to apply the same generally binding collective agreement to all its employees, instead of being obligated to apply a different one to a group performing different work than most. Generally binding collective agreements are applicable to all companies operating in the same industry regardless of whether they have chosen to take part in the national collective bargaining system.

The employer had applied one collective agreement to all its employees based on its main industry. Two employees claimed that the employer should apply another generally binding collective agreement to their employment since their duties were different. The Supreme court ruled that the activities carried out by the two employees did not form a separate and independent unit in relation to other activities of the company. Thus, the employer could apply the collective agreement based on the main industry of the company.

Excessive Overtime Work Can Constitute an Occupational Health Offense

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Authors: Samuel Kääriäinen, Partner and Emma Mäkeläinen, Associate - Dottir Attorneys Ltd.

On June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court of Finland ruled that excessive amount of overtime work can constitute an occupational health offense. Such conclusion had not been clearly stated in the previous case law. The maximum overtime hours had been exceeded to an extreme. Thus, the employer had violated its general obligation to ensure the safety of its employees as well as its obligation to identify and assess the risks related to the work. Further, the employer had not ensured that the employees were not subjected to heavy workloads that endangered their health.