Two Finnish courts have reached completely different conclusions in a closely watched dispute over unpaid wages during the political strikes that swept Finland in spring 2024. While UPM has been cleared of liability for withheld wages, Stora Enso has been ordered to compensate affected employees.
The conflicting rulings have created uncertainty over how Finnish labour law should be interpreted when workers are affected by industrial action organised by unions other than their own.
UPM workers lose their case
The dispute involving UPM concerns employees at the company’s Kuusankoski mill in Kouvola. During the nationwide political strikes in March 2024, UPM halted production and suspended wage payments.
The affected employees were members of the Paper Workers’ Union, which did not participate in the strikes.
The workers later sought compensation for lost wages, but their claims were rejected by the Kymenlaakso District Court.
Stora Enso ordered to pay
A nearly identical situation unfolded at Stora Enso’s mill in Oulu. There, wage payments were also suspended for employees who were not participating in the strike action.
However, the Oulu District Court reached the opposite conclusion and ruled in favour of the employees, ordering Stora Enso to pay the withheld wages.
The fact that two highly similar cases produced entirely different outcomes has attracted considerable attention and raised questions about legal consistency.
The professor points to different interpretations
According to labour law professor emeritus Seppo Koskinen, the key difference lies in how the courts interpreted the relationship between the objectives of the political strikes and the employees who were not directly involved.
Koskinen provided expert opinions in both court proceedings.
UPM argued that the aims of the strikes could still affect the future employment conditions of members of the Paper Workers’ Union and that a dependency relationship therefore existed between the strike action and the affected employees.
Under Finnish labour law, employers are generally required to continue paying wages for up to seven days if employees have no direct connection to the industrial dispute causing the interruption.
Different views on the impact of the strikes
The political strikes were directed against several labour market reforms proposed by the Finnish government, including changes related to local bargaining and the legal framework governing collective agreements.
The Oulu District Court concluded that these issues were political in nature and did not have a sufficiently direct impact on the employees concerned.
The Kymenlaakso District Court, however, found that changes to labour legislation could influence the future employment conditions of Paper Workers’ Union members and therefore established a connection between the strike objectives and the affected workers.
Another important difference was that the Oulu court took into account the fact that the Paper Workers’ Union had neither organised nor supported the strikes. That consideration played no decisive role in the ruling involving UPM.
Appeals could bring greater clarity
Koskinen describes the dispute as highly unusual within Finnish labour law.
According to him, similar cases involving political strikes and employer wage obligations have not previously been tested in Finnish courts.
If the decisions are appealed, the courts of appeal may be asked to provide clearer guidance on how wage liability should be assessed when employees are affected by political strikes organised by other unions.
However, there is no guarantee that higher courts will reach a common interpretation. Until then, uncertainty is likely to remain for both employers and workers facing similar situations in the future.
Background
- Finland experienced extensive political strikes during spring 2024.
- Several industrial companies were forced to reduce or suspend operations.
- The Paper Workers’ Union did not participate in the strikes.
- Despite this, wage payments were suspended at certain mills.
Court findings
- The Kymenlaakso District Court ruled in favour of UPM.
- The Oulu District Court ruled in favour of employees in the case against Stora Enso.
- Both cases involved similar circumstances but resulted in different legal interpretations.
The rulings against Stora Enso and UPM do not represent a final legal precedent. If the cases are appealed, Finland’s courts of appeal could revisit the issue and potentially establish a more consistent legal framework for assessing employer wage obligations when employees are affected by political strikes that their own union does not support or participate in.
Source: Yle, 2026.
