is this right?

Where to buy? Where can I find? How do I? Getting started.
Post Reply
tista
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:02 am

is this right?

Post by tista » Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:22 pm

Hello all,
i have a question.
Before I came to Finland I had heard that your employer can not fire you if you got a baby. Is this right?

Thanks in advance..
-T


If a man who cannot count finds a four-leaf clover, is he lucky? ~Stanislaw J. Lec

is this right?

Sponsor:

Finland Forum Ad-O-Matic
 

riku2
Posts: 1088
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:13 pm

Re: is this right?

Post by riku2 » Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:46 pm

so you think that if a company shuts down a department of 100 people that those with babies (you didn't mention if this would be the mom or the dad or both) cannot be fired and should keep their jobs - where would they then work?

Companies cannot fire you because you have a baby but when firing, the sensible companies would make sure their method is robust enough so that nobody can challenge it and say "i was one of those fired because I had a baby".
Methods would including firing people based on what project they work on and ignoring anything like length of service, how well they do their jobs etc. The decision makers might even not be told who is part of what team, just decide to cross off certain departments/teams/projects and all in that group go. Good are thrown out with bad in this scenario but the company avoids any lawsuits.

User avatar
Pursuivant
Posts: 15089
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:51 am
Location: Bath & Wells

Re: is this right?

Post by Pursuivant » Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:00 am

You can not be fired for getting pregnant. You can not be fired for going on a maternity leave either. Actuall, both make you under a hightened protection clause so the employer must prove you were not fired because you were pregnant or on maternity leave, so they need to be very careful with this. So if theres a department of 3 people doing the same job, and you are pregnant, you can not be sacked unless all 3 are, because otherwise its discrimination they have to prove it is not, so its between the other two. However as riku2 said, they do have their ways. The classic one is that during the year you are away there can be a reorganization, they have YT and you are made redundant and you come to work the first day from the maternity leave to find yourself sacked.
"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes."

tista
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:02 am

Re: is this right?

Post by tista » Tue Aug 20, 2013 9:28 am

thank you for your answers.

sorry, I didnt explain clearly. the company doesnt shut down a department or fires the person because he made a mistake. They want to reduce the expenses with decreasing the personnel. In this case if the person just got a baby, does law protects him anyhow?
If a man who cannot count finds a four-leaf clover, is he lucky? ~Stanislaw J. Lec

User avatar
Pursuivant
Posts: 15089
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:51 am
Location: Bath & Wells

Re: is this right?

Post by Pursuivant » Tue Aug 20, 2013 9:52 am

Yes thats when you have YT - redundancy rounds. "Just had a baby" does not count, "pregnant" or "on maternity leave" does count. So if you are on äitiysloma or vanhempainvapaa you are under "heightened protection", but if you are back at work normally, you're just one of the crowd. If you have anyone in the union (shop steward) at the workplace they can show you the paragraph in the book. Shop stewards are also under "heightened protection".
"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes."

Adrian42
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:13 pm

Re: is this right?

Post by Adrian42 » Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:47 am

Pursuivant wrote:Yes thats when you have YT - redundancy rounds. "Just had a baby" does not count, "pregnant" or "on maternity leave" does count. So if you are on äitiysloma or vanhempainvapaa you are under "heightened protection"
The provision in the law is actually a bit broader:
The employer shall be entitled to terminate the employment contract of an employee on maternity, special maternity, paternity, parental or child care leave on the grounds laid down in section 3 only if its operations cease completely.

tista
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:02 am

Re: is this right?

Post by tista » Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:42 am

Adrian42 wrote: The provision in the law is actually a bit broader:
The employer shall be entitled to terminate the employment contract of an employee on maternity, special maternity, paternity, parental or child care leave on the grounds laid down in section 3 only if its operations cease completely.
thank you for your answer.

could you please explain what exactly "only if its operations cease completely" means. I couldnt understand it well.
If a man who cannot count finds a four-leaf clover, is he lucky? ~Stanislaw J. Lec

riku2
Posts: 1088
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:13 pm

Re: is this right?

Post by riku2 » Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:31 am


Adrian42
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:13 pm

Re: is this right?

Post by Adrian42 » Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:15 am

tista wrote:
Adrian42 wrote: The provision in the law is actually a bit broader:
The employer shall be entitled to terminate the employment contract of an employee on maternity, special maternity, paternity, parental or child care leave on the grounds laid down in section 3 only if its operations cease completely.
thank you for your answer.

could you please explain what exactly "only if its operations cease completely" means. I couldnt understand it well.
You have to ask such questions to a lawyer.

If you are a member of a union, your union might offer free legal advice from a lawyer.

Rip
Posts: 5582
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: is this right?

Post by Rip » Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:11 am

tista wrote: could you please explain what exactly "only if its operations cease completely" means. I couldnt understand it well.
Everybody else is fired because of bankruptcy or some other reason. Probably there is some less than obvious legal details you know only if you're an expert (Private entrepreneur with one hired help. That one goes to the maternity leave, one TMI is closed (sole employment contract terminated), and another one with same business model is opened the next day. I don't THINK that would be approved by a court), but the basic principle should be clear?

Adrian42
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:13 pm

Re: is this right?

Post by Adrian42 » Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:56 am

Rip wrote:
tista wrote: could you please explain what exactly "only if its operations cease completely" means. I couldnt understand it well.
Everybody else is fired because of bankruptcy or some other reason.
Company closes down the Helsinki office but keeps it's Tampere office would be another example (the Helsinki office ceases operations).
Or the company shuts down the manufacturing unit in a town (but might keep the R&D unit at the same place - the manufacturing unit ceased operations completely).
For exact details what is allowed and what is not allowed here a lawyer has to be consulted.

And as Pursuivant already noted correctly, the protection anyway only covers the duration of the leave.
As soon as you come back from your leave, you can get laid off temporarily or permanently.

Rip
Posts: 5582
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: is this right?

Post by Rip » Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:52 pm

Adrian42 wrote:
Rip wrote:
tista wrote: could you please explain what exactly "only if its operations cease completely" means. I couldnt understand it well.
Everybody else is fired because of bankruptcy or some other reason.
Company closes down the Helsinki office but keeps it's Tampere office would be another example (the Helsinki office ceases operations).
(Yes, I am not a lawyer but...) actually I don't think that qualifies - although if there is no job available in Tampere in that company or one is unable or unwilling to take it, one would find yourself being fired just after the family leave is over ( http://www.kko.fi/tulostus/47940.htm ).

tista
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:02 am

Re: is this right?

Post by tista » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:18 am

Thanks for all! It helped a lot.

Now I wait and see who will be fired or laid off from the company. I am in safe at least 3 weeks more :)
If a man who cannot count finds a four-leaf clover, is he lucky? ~Stanislaw J. Lec


Post Reply