Expert says Kela should have disclosed remote-work monitoring rules

Kela should have told employees in advance how it would monitor their remote work, a labour and social law expert says. Yle reported that the benefits agency tracked the working time of about 2,000 employees in the summer of 2023, with the monitoring leading to notices, warnings and dismissals for dozens of workers.

Some employees were surprised by the scrutiny, despite having previously received positive feedback on their work. Jaana Paanetoja, a docent in labour and social law, said monitoring methods and their purpose should be discussed with staff in advance through a cooperation procedure.

Kela described the monitoring as a one-off trial. It did not cover all of the agency’s nearly 4,000 benefit handlers. Paanetoja said this raised questions about whether the monitoring had been carried out consistently, adding that employers must treat employees equally.

Kela sent some employees reports from its Oiwa monitoring system and asked them to explain breaks months after they had occurred. Workers said it was difficult to remember what they had been doing at a particular time. One employee said the system counted phone calls as breaks rather than work.

Paanetoja said a break of a few hours because of a headache or a necessary appointment would not automatically amount to misuse of working time or a breach of work obligations. She also said that seeking explanations months later suggested employees may not have been given clear instructions beforehand about permitted breaks and how to record them.

One employee was able to explain a two-hour break because they had noted the reason in their calendar: they had attended employer-provided training, which Oiwa had not recognised. Paanetoja said an employer was too late to ask for explanations if it waited several months.

In spring 2026, the Labour Court ruled that Kela had unlawfully dismissed a long-serving employee in connection with the monitoring. The court found that the reports did not reliably describe the employee’s use of working time and that the employee had not known Oiwa was being used to monitor their work. The employee had not received a warning before being dismissed.

Paanetoja said that, unless there had been a serious failure to perform duties, an employer should issue a warning and remind the worker of the applicable instructions before considering dismissal.