Finland's courts have ordered an employer to pay over 40,000 euros in compensation after it unlawfully fired a worker who took sick leave following the death of his cat. The Käräjäoikeus (district court) found the termination was connected to the employee's health and constituted a significant violation of equality law, resulting in a landmark ruling for workers' rights concerning grief and mental well-being.
A Grieving Owner's Sick Leave Denied
An automotive mechanic's cat fell seriously ill and had to be euthanized. The devastated man took sick leave, supported by a doctor's certificate for his absence. His employer did not accept this reason for leave and demanded he return to work immediately. The employer messaged the worker stating he himself had to cover the man's duties. Management presented the employee with an ultimatum to either return to work or resign. The worker cut his sick leave short and returned, but the situation had already deteriorated. Upon his return, he was given a new ultimatum to either resign or be fired. The conflict ended with the employee's dismissal.
Employer's Contradictory Claims Unravel in Court
The employer justified the dismissal with an extensive list of alleged faults. The termination notice stated the man was fired for being absent from work duties without permission, threatening the employer with violence and home invasion, neglecting his work, causing costs and losses to the company, and insulting supervisors in an internal company messaging group. In court, the employer argued the dismissal was primarily due to the employee's numerous errors in work tasks, for which they claimed to have given verbal and written warnings. The employee had refused to sign these warnings, according to the employer. However, the Käräjäoikeus found no evidence to support these claims. The court stated there was no proof the employee had actually received written warnings or was responsible for the specific errors cited. The worker admitted to some minor mistakes, but the court ruled these were not serious enough to justify dismissal.
The court paid particular attention to inconsistencies in the employer's explanation. The employer first claimed to have given the employee warnings, then said it had moved to giving him remarks, which is a milder disciplinary measure than a warning. This contradictory account undermined the employer's credibility. The court determined the dismissal was fundamentally linked to the employee's state of health following his pet's death and his subsequent use of sick leave.
A Costly Lesson in Employment Law
The Käräjäoikeus ruled comprehensively in the worker's favor. It ordered the employer to pay the man and the unemployment fund the equivalent of five months' salary in back pay, totaling approximately 11,600 euros. The court also mandated payment of 2,600 euros for the sick leave salary that was wrongly withheld. Because the dismissal was related to the man's health condition, he was entitled to compensation under Finland's Non-Discrimination Act. The court found the employer's conduct was reprehensible and the violation was significant, setting a reasonable compensation at 10,000 euros. When the employee's legal costs were added, the total sum the employer was liable to pay exceeded 40,000 euros. The grieving pet owner, however, never received this money, as he passed away before the conclusion of the case.
Legal Precedent on Health and Sickness Absence
This case underscores established Finnish labor law principles where a doctor's certificate is the primary document validating sickness absence. An employer's personal opinion on the validity of the reason for sick leave is not relevant if a medical certificate is provided. The court's scrutiny of the employer's procedural flaws, specifically the lack of documented warnings and the shifting narrative, highlights the high standard of proof required for a dismissal to be deemed lawful. The substantial compensation awarded under the Non-Discrimination Act signals that courts view interference with health-related absences as a serious infringement. While Finnish law does not explicitly categorize pet bereavement, it protects an employee's right to sick leave for mental and physical health issues as certified by a physician. This ruling reinforces that the cause of a health issue is generally not for the employer to dispute.