FINLAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: Anu Waaralinna, Jukka Paloheimo, Oskari Lindholm and Elmiira Kutvonen, Roschier
Practical recommendations for employers Establishing robust investigation protocols Given the complexity of Finnish law, companies should establish clear protocols before misconduct arises. These should address at least the following. • Who will lead investigations: In many cases, the firm recommends retaining external Finnish coun - sel to ensure privilege protection and compliance with technical requirements. Situations leading to an investigation are usually ongoing for quite a long time within the company, so the HR department may not be deemed objective and/or impartial. Based on the firm’s understanding and experience, most investigations will be carried out by external counsel. • What data can be reviewed: Map out in advance which data sources are accessible under Finnish law and which require employee consent or police involvement. In the latter case, a request for an investigation must be made to the police. • Interview procedures: Develop standard approach - es for conducting witness interviews that balance the need to gather information with employees’ rights, bearing in mind that employees’ rights in investigations differ from those relating to, for example, termination of employment. • Documentation practices: Make sure that all inves - tigation materials are properly labelled and stored to maintain privilege where applicable. • Decision-making frameworks: Establish clear criteria for deciding whether to self-report to the authorities or keep investigations internal. Balancing speed with compliance Investigations often require prompt action – wit - nesses’ memories fade, evidence may be destroyed and ongoing misconduct must be stopped. However, rushing an investigation in Finland can create serious legal exposure if data protection or employment law requirements are violated. If there is ongoing misconduct, particularly criminal activity, the company should take the necessary steps to stop it. Companies must strike a balance between acting quickly to prevent harm and ensuring full legal compliance.
and ensure that operations are conducted with due care and diligence. However, even if a corporation has taken all possible steps to prevent an offence, including implementing a compliance programme, it may still be subject to a corporate fine if an individual with decision-making power is involved in or allows the offence. Neverthe - less, if a corporate fine is imposed, a well-designed and properly implemented compliance programme may serve as evidence that the company acted with little or no negligence when determining the amount of the fine, depending on the nature and extent of the offence. Understanding criminal and corporate criminal liability If the occupational safety and health authority (the Finnish Supervisory Agency) suspects such miscon - duct that meets the criteria for an occupational safety offence as stated in the Finnish Criminal Code, the authority has the right and obligation to report the matter to the police. Harassment or other inappropri - ate behaviour may also meet these criteria. An occu - pational health and safety offence is punishable by a fine or a maximum of one year’s imprisonment, and involves corporate criminal liability. According to the Finnish Criminal Code, corporations or other legal entities cannot be considered perpetra - tors of crimes, as crimes can only be committed by natural persons. Therefore, the criminal liability of a corporation arises from the actions of a natural per - son. A corporate fine can be imposed if the Criminal Code provides for this type of sanction for the offence in question. A corporation or other legal entity can be punished by a corporate fine if a member of its statu - tory body, other management or an individual exercis - ing decision-making power has been involved in an offence, allowed an offence to be committed or failed to exercise the necessary care and diligence to pre - vent an offence. Corporate fines range from EUR850 to EUR850,000, representing substantial potential liability.
145 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook