Nordic Employment Law Bulletin - April 2026
In our monthly Nordic Employment Law bulletin our employment lawyers across the Nordic region highlight relevant news and trends on the Nordic employment market scene. The bulletin intends to provide high-level knowledge and insight. Want to learn more? Our experts will be happy to hear from you.
Highlights from Denmark
- On 24 March 2026, Denmark held its general election. The result was a fragmented parliament, as the centre-left won 84 seats, the centre-right won 77 seats, resulting in neither of them with a majority of the 179-seat parliament. As a result, government formation negotiations are ongoing, with possibilities including a centrist coalition across traditional blocs, as was the case in the previous election period. As a result of the general election, there have been no legislative activities. Therefore, no new bills have been introduced or adopted. Once a government has been formed, the legislative activities will resume.
- The summer is approaching and so is the summer holiday. Under the Danish Holiday Act, employees are entitled to take three consecutive weeks of holiday during the period 1 May – 30 September. The employer determines the timing of such holiday following discussions with the employee, and the holiday must be notified by the employer at least 3 months in advance. As a result, it is recommended that companies begin planning the summer holiday period well in advance in order to ensure a smooth process and minimise the risk of issues regarding the timing of holiday. Early dialogue with employees and clear communication of expectation can help align operational needs with employees’ preference. According to the Danish Holiday Act, this includes taking into account an employee’s request to take their main holiday during their child’s school summer holiday.
Highlights from Finland
- Implementation of the Pay Transparency Directive postponed — The government proposal to implement the Pay Transparency Directive was expected on week 11 in March 2026 but presentation of the proposal to the Finnish Parliament has again been postponed. Currently the expected week of presentation is week 16 commencing on 13 April 2026.
- Other Government actions to prevent discrimination — Despite the implementation of the Pay Transparency Directive is postponed, the Finnish government is proposing additional changes to the Act on Equality Between Women and Men and further obligations to employers with the aim to prevent discrimination based on pregnancy and family leaves more efficiently. Government proposal issued 26 March 2026 proposes that prohibited discrimination grounds should be specified to include parenthood and family care obligations. Furthermore, going forward an employer would have an obligation to explain why a fixed-term agreement has ended or has not been renewed if the fixed-term employee has announced of being pregnant, of giving birth or of family care obligations. Obligation to pay indemnity for breach of the Act would be extended to cover companies using leased workforce. The periods for filing a claim under the Act would also be amended.
Highlights from Norway
Part-Time Shop Assistant Wins Overtime Claim in District Court — A part-time shop assistant has partially succeeded in a claim for overtime compensation before the District Court. The judgment was delivered on 25 February 2026.
The court distinguished between on-call substitute work and permanent part-time employment. The claim was unanimously rejected for the on-call periods, as each assignment was treated as a separate agreement and the employee was free to decline shifts. This is common in the working life.
For the period of permanent part-time employment, however, a majority of the court agreed with the employee who was awarded NOK 205,340 in compensation and holiday pay for unpaid overtime work, together with legal costs.
The dispute concerned work beyond the agreed part-time percentage, but within statutory limits for ordinary working hours, commonly referred to in Norway as “additional work”. Relying on recent EU case law, the majority of the court held that applying the same overtime threshold to full-time and part-time employees without proportional adjustments may amount to unlawful unequal treatment. The judgment was not unanimous and is likely to be appealed. Furthermore, it is widely discussed in the Norwegian employment sphere because of its possible far-reaching consequences on work planning and labour costs.
The decision can be found (in Norwegian only) HERE.
Wolt Couriers Lose Appeal in Employment Status Case — On 24 February 2026, the Court of Appeal ruled that Wolt couriers are to be classified as independent contractors, not employees entitled to permanent employment under the Working Environment Act. The judgment sets aside the earlier decision of the District Court.
The case concerned three couriers who brought legal action seeking recognition as employees. While the District Court had ruled in their favour, the majority of the Court of Appeal concluded that couriers must be regarded as independent contractors and not employees. One of the five judges dissented, taking the view that the couriers should be classified as employees.
The court performed an overall assessment of the relevant factors but placed particular emphasis on the flexibility of the platform model. The couriers are free to decide when they wish to work and are under no obligation to accept assignments offered through the app. According to the majority, this freedom is a key factor indicating contractor status. The judgement has received great attention nationwide and is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The decision can be found (in Norwegian only) HERE.
Highlights from Sweden
Sweden hits snooze button on the EU Pay Transparency Directive — On 26 March 2026, approximately a week after the final bill was scheduled to be presented, the Swedish government announced its intention to delay implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive. The government argues that the current version is so administratively cumbersome that it risks overshadowing its equality goals. Instead of helping employers address unjustified pay gaps, it may add more paperwork than progress. Sweden therefore intends to push the implementation deadline forward and start discussions on a more flexible, streamlined model. While the directive aims to boost pay transparency across Europe, Sweden argues that the one‑size‑fits‑all structure does not sit well with national systems or existing Swedish pay‑equity tools. Social partners and civil‑society groups have raised similar concerns, warning of duplicated reporting and unnecessary administration. According to the Swedish government, rules should support equality work — not drown employers in templates. For now, the government will not submit any proposal to the Swedish parliament as discussions continue at EU level.
- Unemployment drops, but layoff notices keep buzzing in the background — Sweden’s labour market is showing mixed signals. Unemployment is trending downward, but notices of collective redundancies remain high. At the end of February, just over 360,000 people (6.8% of the labour force) were registered as unemployed, the lowest level since late 2023. However, notices of collective redundancies have increased in recent months, suggesting that employers remain cautious. Analysts warn that geopolitical developments could slow the recovery. According to the Swedish Public Employment Service, it will be important to monitor how the labour market reacts in the coming months. For now, the labour market is still moving in the right direction, but with one hand on the brake.
A sealed envelope with criminal record extract, no GDPR breach — The Swedish Labour Court has ruled that an employer did not violate GDPR when opening a sealed criminal record extract provided by an employee. The union argued unlawful processing of sensitive data and sought SEK 60,000 in damages, but the court disagreed. Although reading personal data counts as processing, GDPR only applies to manual processing if the information is part of, or intended to be part of, a structured register. In this case, the employer merely opened the envelope, read the document, and did nothing more: no storage, no filing system, no database. Absent any intention of registering the information, the court found that GDPR did not apply. The court also declined a request to seek guidance from the EU Court of Justice, and the union was ordered to pay SEK 200,000 in legal fees.
