Criminalisation Of Unfair Dismissal Practices
1. Legal Framework for Unfair Dismissal in Finland
Key Laws
Employment Contracts Act (Työsopimuslaki 55/2001)
Governs termination of employment, notice periods, and grounds for dismissal.
Chapter 7 – Termination of Employment: Specifies that dismissals must have valid reason: personal reasons (employee conduct, ability) or production/financial reasons (redundancy).
Wrongful dismissal can lead to compensation and reinstatement.
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Chapter 29 – Offences against Occupational Rights and Work Safety
Certain cases of abusive or coercive termination can amount to criminal offences, e.g., threats, duress, or obstruction of union activity.
Chapter 36 – Fraud and Economic Crime
Termination with intent to avoid contractual obligations (e.g., non-payment of severance) may constitute fraud.
Collective Agreements and Labor Union Protections
Unions may enforce provisions for fair dismissal, and violations can escalate to civil and sometimes criminal liability if there is intentional deception or coercion.
2. What Counts as “Criminal Unfair Dismissal”?
While most unfair dismissals are civil matters, certain circumstances elevate them to criminal offences:
Terminating employees to avoid union participation or collective bargaining
Coercing employees into resignation under threat (constructive dismissal)
Falsifying documents to justify dismissal
Refusing legally mandated severance with fraudulent intent
Retaliating against whistleblowers
3. Detailed Case Summaries (6 Examples)
Case 1 — Falsified Performance Records to Justify Dismissal
Nature: Fraudulent termination
Law applied: Employment Contracts Act + Criminal Code Ch. 36 (fraud)
Facts:
An employee was terminated for “poor performance.” During investigation, auditors discovered that management falsified performance reports to fabricate a legal ground for dismissal.
Court Findings:
The employer acted intentionally to avoid paying severance and contractual benefits.
The court found fraudulent intent because the dismissal was premeditated with falsified evidence.
Outcome:
Criminal fines imposed on HR director and managing director
Compensation awarded to the employee, including lost wages and moral damages
Legal significance:
Shows that falsifying documentation for dismissal can trigger criminal liability, not just civil remedies.
Case 2 — Union Representative Terminated for Organizing Strike
Nature: Retaliatory dismissal
Law applied: Employment Contracts Act, Criminal Code Ch. 29 (offence against occupational rights)
Facts:
A union representative was dismissed shortly after organizing a lawful strike. Investigation revealed management’s explicit motive was to punish union activity.
Court Findings:
Termination violated employee occupational rights protected under criminal law.
Dismissal was not linked to performance or economic necessity.
Outcome:
Conditional imprisonment for the HR manager
Employee reinstated
Employer ordered to pay compensation for lost wages and moral damages
Legal significance:
Criminal law protects union activities, and retaliatory dismissal can lead to prosecution.
Case 3 — Threats to Force Resignation (Constructive Dismissal)
Nature: Coercion; duress
Law applied: Criminal Code Ch. 29 (threats, coercion)
Facts:
An employee was threatened with termination unless they agreed to a reduced salary and benefits. Refusal would result in immediate dismissal.
Court Findings:
The court interpreted the threats as duress, elevating the case to criminal coercion.
Employer’s intent was deliberate: force the employee to accept less favorable terms.
Outcome:
HR manager received a short custodial sentence suspended
Employee’s contract terms restored
Compensation for stress and financial loss
Legal significance:
Constructive dismissal with threats is criminally punishable, not merely a civil dispute.
Case 4 — Dismissal of Pregnant Employee Without Just Cause
Nature: Discrimination; violation of occupational rights
Law applied: Employment Contracts Act, Criminal Code Ch. 29
Facts:
A pregnant employee was terminated for “restructuring reasons,” but evidence showed management knew she was pregnant and intended to avoid maternity leave obligations.
Court Findings:
Intentional targeting of a protected employee is a criminal offence.
Civil remedies (compensation) were combined with criminal sanctions.
Outcome:
Employer fined and mandated to reinstate employee
Severance paid retroactively
Criminal record for the manager involved
Legal significance:
Employment discrimination in protected categories can lead to criminal sanctions, not only civil remedies.
Case 5 — Wrongful Dismissal to Avoid Contractual Severance
Nature: Economic crime; fraud
Law applied: Criminal Code Ch. 36 (fraud)
Facts:
A company terminated several employees claiming “redundancy” while hiring new staff for the same tasks under different contracts, avoiding severance payments.
Court Findings:
Employer acted fraudulently to circumvent statutory obligations.
Dismissals were pretextual; new hires proved the economic rationale was false.
Outcome:
Corporate fines and restitution of severance payments
Conditional imprisonment for managing director
Legal significance:
Shows that attempting to avoid legal obligations through sham dismissals can constitute fraud.
Case 6 — Whistleblower Retaliation
Nature: Retaliatory dismissal; obstruction of occupational rights
Law applied: Employment Contracts Act, Criminal Code Ch. 29
Facts:
An employee reported serious safety violations. Shortly after, they were dismissed citing performance issues.
Court Findings:
Evidence showed management dismissed the employee in retaliation for whistleblowing, protected under law.
Criminal liability applied due to violation of occupational rights.
Outcome:
Employer fined and employee reinstated
Compensation for lost wages and stress
Mandatory reporting and policy changes implemented
Legal significance:
Whistleblower retaliation is both a civil wrong and a criminal offence under Finnish law.
4. Key Takeaways from Finnish Law
Most dismissals are civil, but criminal liability arises with intent, coercion, or discrimination.
Fraudulent dismissals to avoid obligations are criminal under Ch. 36.
Threats, duress, union retaliation, or discrimination fall under Ch. 29 (occupational rights).
Courts combine civil remedies (compensation, reinstatement) with criminal sanctions (fines, conditional imprisonment).
Protecting employees in vulnerable categories (union members, pregnant employees, whistleblowers) is heavily enforced.
RELATED Blog
comments