District Court issues judgment on unjustified termination of employment relationship

The case involved an employee who had been enticed to transfer to a permanent contract with a new employer. The recruitment was done using an external consulting company that repeatedly contacted the employee. The employee was lured into accepting the new job, terminating his job at the time and moving to a new locality.

Contrary to what was promised in the contract negotiations, the employee was informed that the employment was a six-month fixed-term contract. The employment contract did not explain why it was for a fixed term. Finding that the consulting firm and the employer were passive, the employee repeatedly inquired about the working location and a draft employment contract, which he eventually got.

Having received the employment contract, the employee starting working for the company. Despite repeated inquiries, he was never told when his shifts would be. Eventually the consulting company phoned the employee to say that his employment had ended. According to the consultant, “the job being applied for is no longer available” and therefore there is no contractual relationship between the parties. The employee was paid incomplete severance pay and got a new employment contract of a very short duration of just a few weeks.

The employee sued for missing wages for the termination notice period and holiday compensation, pay for waiting days, damages and six months’ pay as compensation for unjustified termination of employment. The amount of damages took account of the fact that following the job offer the employee had taken relevant steps and made commitments that he would not otherwise have made. Among other things, he had resigned from his previous job, moved to another locality for the job, rented a new home there and furnished it.

There was no response to the lawsuit within the time limit and the District Court of Helsinki ordered all the claims to be paid to the employee.