Finland's Varsinais-Suomen District Court has ordered a local welfare region to pay 8,800 euros to a nurse who was denied a bonus because she was pregnant and on sick leave. The ruling last week highlights the legal risks for employers who fail to account for pregnancy-related absences in their incentive schemes.
The Promise of Extra Pay
The case dates back to the 2021-2022 New Year period. The woman worked as a nurse on a ward for the Perusturvakuntayhtymä Akseli, a municipal federation. The federation's acute care unit had a staff shortage at the time. To keep nurses on the job, the employer offered a one-time 800-euro 'commitment bonus' to current employees. To qualify, a worker had to complete at least 75 percent of their shifts during a specified period.
Several other employees on the acute care unit received this bonus. The pregnant nurse did not. Her employer stated she had not worked enough shifts during the commitment period. The nurse had experienced premature contractions in the autumn, which led to an extended sick leave. After that, she worked only a couple of weeks before starting her maternity leave.
A Claim Denied and a Case Filed
The woman returned to work eventually and realized she had not received the 800-euro payment. In December 2022, she sent a payment demand to her employer. The municipal federation refused to pay. The nurse believed her rights had been violated and filed a lawsuit against her employer in the district court. At the start of 2023, the operations of the municipal federation were transferred to the newly established Varsinais-Suomen Hyvinvointialue, the Varsinais-Suomi Welfare Region.
In her suit, the woman demanded the 800-euro bonus plus 16,000 euros in compensation for the legal violation. She argued she had been discriminated against due to her pregnancy. She had remained in an employment contract the entire time and was absent solely for pregnancy-related reasons.
A Shift in Responsibility
The welfare region opposed the claim and argued it was the wrong party in the case. It said the correct party would have been the original municipal federation. The welfare region argued that the claimed commitment bonus was a form of compensation debt, a type of obligation that does not transfer to a new employer during a business transfer.
The welfare region also rejected, as the federation had, the idea that an employer had any obligation to pay a commitment bonus to an employee who had been on a long leave. Furthermore, the welfare region dismissed the nurse's claim for 16,000 euros in equality compensation.
The Court's Decision
The Varsinais-Suomen District Court accepted the nurse's claim but halved the equality compensation she had sought. The court deemed the welfare region was the responsible party in the matter. The court found that the employer had placed the plaintiff in an unequal position compared to other employees who performed similar work.
The employer's criteria for the bonus did not account for absences caused by pregnancy or related illnesses. The court stated that such an arrangement constitutes discrimination based on pregnancy, which is prohibited under Finland's Act on Equality between Women and Men and the Finnish Employment Contracts Act. The ruling orders the Varsinais-Suomi Welfare Region to pay the nurse the 800-euro bonus she was originally denied and 8,000 euros in compensation for the discrimination, for a total of 8,800 euros.
The Broader Legal Context
This case connects directly to Finland's robust legal framework against discrimination. The Act on Equality between Women and Men (609/1986) explicitly prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy. The Finnish Non-Discrimination Act also strengthens these protections. Furthermore, European Union law, including the Pregnant Workers Directive and the Recast Gender Equality Directive, sets a strong foundation that national courts like Finland's must uphold. These directives mandate that member states ensure protection against dismissal and ensure health and safety for pregnant workers, principles that were central to this district court's assessment.
Implications for Finland's Welfare Regions
The case arrives during a pivotal structural change in Finnish healthcare and social services. The sector reform that established 21 wellbeing services counties, like Varsinais-Suomen Hyvinvointialue, transferred massive responsibilities from municipalities. This ruling clarifies that these new entities can inherit legal liabilities related to employment practices from their predecessor organizations. It serves as a stark reminder to all public sector employers that incentive schemes and bonus structures must be designed to be neutral and not indirectly penalize employees for legally protected statuses like pregnancy.
For the nurse at the heart of the case, the ruling is a vindication after a legal battle that stretched over two years. It reinforces that employment rights follow the worker, even through complex administrative reorganizations. The decision may prompt other public and private employers across Finland to review their own bonus and incentive programs to ensure they comply with non-discrimination laws. While the 8,800-euro penalty is directed at one welfare region, the precedent it sets on the fair treatment of pregnant employees resonates throughout the Finnish labor market.