31 January, 2012If there is not a motivated and objective reason for a job being temporary, it is permanent, the Finnish High Court ruled on January 24. The fact that a work agency client company assignment is time-limited is not a sufficient reason.
FINLAND: Finland's High Court ruled January 24 to the employee's advantage in a dispute that has been treated, and appealed, in different courts since 2009. The case dates back to 2006 when a shop assistant employed by the Argent work agency and working for Koti-Idea was told that her job would cease when the client order expired.
The client's need for shop assistants was permanent, however, and the company immediately started looking for replacements. With the help of the Finnish Service workers' union PAM, the employee took the case to court.
The district court and the court of appeal considered that the employer, Argent, had a motivated reason to limit the time of the contract. According to PAM however, the employer circumvented legal provisions on employment security.
The High Court finally concluded that the law on employment contracts applies also to agency work, which should be permanent, if there is no motivated and objective reason for a time limit. An objective reason would for example be that there is need of additional labor only for a limited time, to even out seasonal peaks. In this case, the justification simply was that the client wanted to end the employment. The employer had also referred to general practice in the sector. This didn't convince the Supreme Court. It concluded that a job is not temporary just because an employer uses work agencies.
The shop assistant will now be compensated. The High Court decision clearly improves the status of agency labour in Finland, says Katarina Murto, a bargaining expert at the Finnish union confederation SAK.
The client's need for shop assistants was permanent, however, and the company immediately started looking for replacements. With the help of the Finnish Service workers' union PAM, the employee took the case to court.
The district court and the court of appeal considered that the employer, Argent, had a motivated reason to limit the time of the contract. According to PAM however, the employer circumvented legal provisions on employment security.
The High Court finally concluded that the law on employment contracts applies also to agency work, which should be permanent, if there is no motivated and objective reason for a time limit. An objective reason would for example be that there is need of additional labor only for a limited time, to even out seasonal peaks. In this case, the justification simply was that the client wanted to end the employment. The employer had also referred to general practice in the sector. This didn't convince the Supreme Court. It concluded that a job is not temporary just because an employer uses work agencies.
The shop assistant will now be compensated. The High Court decision clearly improves the status of agency labour in Finland, says Katarina Murto, a bargaining expert at the Finnish union confederation SAK.