The government is pushing forward a legislative change where a “factual reason” – asiallinen syy – would be enough to end an employment contract. Under the current labor laws, a “weighty reason” – painava syy – is required.
“Nobody can say for sure at this stage what will count as a “justifiable” reason. Only the judgement of real-life cases will clarify that,” Salokannel points out.
He worries that failing to meet targets could easily be labeled as underperformance and become a valid “factual” reason to fire someone. This could create major challenges, especially for sales and marketing roles.
“To drive sales, you need expertise. Business graduates – Ekonomit – have it. But there is a talent competition between sales jobs and other jobs. If there are safer career paths available, who would want to be a seller in this country? Will sales and marketing become the next healthcare sector, where finding skilled workers is a struggle?” Salokannel wonders.
A Missed Target Does Not Automatically Mean Underperformance
Linking performance targets to dismissal grounds raises several concerns.
“How can an employee defend themselves if the employer sets unrealistic targets from the start? Plus, market conditions or customer types are such sometimes that reaching those targets simply is not possible.”
In those cases, it is not fair to call it underperformance.
“Evaluating underperformance is especially tricky in expert roles. Often, there is no one else doing the same work to compare to. You cannot just claim someone is performing worse than their peers. That’s why it’s always important to assess whether the targets are reasonable.”
Salokannel emphasizes that decision about dismissals must ensure that performance targets are objectively realistic. If the law changes, this principle should be clearly written into it.
“Or will employees have to complain to their employers every time they receive a target, just to protect their own legal rights?”
According to him, the issue of underperformance could be addressed without removing the current “weighty reason” requirement. Instead of weakening the law, a better solution could be to clarify the process to give official warnings to employees.
The proposed change is currently being reviewed by a tripartite working group, which will continue its work until the end of the year.
