Employment 2025

NORWAY Trends and Developments

be considered employees or contractors. The aim is, among other things, to improve the working condi - tions for people who perform platform work and to promote transparency and accountability in the way algorithms manage such work. In the original Commission proposal, criteria were pro - posed that would determine whether an employment relationship existed, based on the extent to which the digital platform controlled the work. However, this was not adopted, and the classification is largely left to regulation in the individual member states. Due to the above-mentioned new Norwegian definition of “employee” and the switch regarding laying the bur - den of proof on the contracting company (platform), the presumption rule of the Directive might therefore not have much impact in Norway. In particular, in WoltCouriers , the District Court of Oslo pronounced on 4 April 2025 that Wolt couriers were entitled to permanent employment. The judgment is the first to consider management via algorithms in working conditions in Norway. For the court, it was an important factor that the applications in Wolt’s plat - form work with the help of algorithms, which, among other things (according to the court’s opinion), dis - tribute the assignments, and detail and monitor the implementation. The platform thus exercised a con - siderable degree of management and control. This again led to the need of protection from the Act. The case has been appealed. The two cases point out that companies must have a conscious attitude towards the organisation of their activities, especially when it comes to the affiliation of labour. Supreme Court judgment ruling regarding economic compensation when an independent contractor is considered to be an employee On 20 December 2024 the Supreme Court ruled in a decision regarding the economic consequences when an independent contractor was considered to be an employee (the Recovery Case ). The question was whether an independent contractor should be compensated for overtime work and holiday pay when defined as an employee.

The Supreme Court concluded that the mandatory rules of the Norwegian Employment Act regarding working time and pay should be followed, unless the parties had a valid agreement saying otherwise. As their contract did not reflect the real situation, working time exceeding the normal working hours as defined in the Act should be seen as overtime work with over - time pay. If some of this pay by proof had already been paid out, there should not be double compensation. The Supreme Court also ruled that the employee was entitled to full holiday pay and that this claim was not outdated. Supreme Court ruling clarifies occupational injury coverage during breaks when working remotely On 2 September 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment that provides important practical clarifi - cation of the scope of occupational injury coverage when an employee is working remotely. The judgment states that employees have weaker protection against occupational injuries when working remotely rather than at their office (ordinary place of work). The case concerned a doctor who, after having worked more than 11 hours on a patient admission on Saturday, worked remotely on Sunday morning, catching up on medical literature related to the patient admission. Before her scheduled return to the hospi - tal, she took a meal break in her private garden. On her way out to the garden, the doctor stumbled and sustained permanent injuries to her foot. According to the relevant legislation, occupational injury only applies to injuries sustained while “the employee is at work at the workplace during work - ing hours”. When work is performed remotely, a close connection between the work and the accident is required, and this requirement is interpreted strictly. For breaks at the regular workplace, the requirements are less stringent. For breaks during remote work, the majority of the Supreme Court found that this does not apply to remote work due to the private nature of the home and the blurred boundaries between work and private life. The majority also found no support for a broader inter - pretation of the connection requirement in case law, preparatory works or purpose-based considerations.

420 CHAMBERS.COM