Collective redundancies in the State of California of the United States and in the Republic of Finland. Procedures and Provisions

Video games industry has recently bonded California and Finland in a new way and where the employers are recruiting they also need to be aware of the provisions and procedures related to terminations. In general, collective dismissals are on a relatively high level both in Finland and in California. In California, collective redundancies are regulated under the WARN law. The WARN obligates employers with 75 or more employees to give a 60-day notice prior to a mass lay off and some other similar events. Employers with less than 75 employees are free to administer the terminations without the WARN notice period. Generally, the California at-will presumption allows employment relationship to be terminated any day with or without reason and without notice period if conditions of collective agreements or employment contract do not limit this right. Termination cannot anyhow be in violation of the anti-discrimination law. In Finland the termination related provisions are part of the Employment Contracts Act and the Act on Co-operation within Undertakings. Collective redundancies are allowed under financial and production related grounds. Small employers with less than 20 employees follow the termination provisions of the Employment Contracts Act and are obligated to inform the employee to be terminated on the details of the termination itself and also the services of the Employment and Economic Development Office. Employers with 20 or more employees are to initiate co-operation procedure under the Act on Co-operation within Undertakings when reducing personnel. The co- operation negotiations are to inform employees on the employer’s plans and financial situation as well as to involve them in the decision making regarding the terminations. The employer’s duty to inform the employees of the services of Employment and Economic Development Office needs to be fulfilled also in terminations under the co-operation procedure. Discrimination is prohibited in Finland in terminations of employment. As an alternative for terminations, employees can for example be transferred to another position or be temporarily laid off. Employer’s duties related to search of alternatives for layoff are broader in Finland than in California. The recent development of the labor laws in Finland and in California suggests that the labor law is not static in either one of these environments but changes can be expected as the needs of the business life so require.

Tasa-arvon monet kasvot : kansainvälisistä vaikutuksista Suomen tasa-arvo-oikeudessa

English summary: Multifaceted equality: international influences in Finnish equality law (s.1281-1282)

Parental and Successor Liability in EU Competition Law Infringements

Under EU competition law, parent companies may be held jointly and severally liable for the competition law infringements committed by their subsidiaries. The possibility of holding parent companies liable demonstrates a significant exception from the idea of separate legal entities. However, it is not the only deviation developed under EU competition law. In cases, where the legal entity responsible for the anti-competitive conduct has changed its form, liability can be attributed to the new operator, in particular, to its successor. The principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations are issues that surround the doctrines of parental and successor liability. The aim of this thesis is to present a comprehensive comparative analysis of the parental and successor liability doctrines and to clarify the conditions under which it is possible to attribute liability for the infringements of EU competition law. The main purpose is therefore to demonstrate the problems related to the allocation of liability and to discuss whether these liability principles, established to assure the effective enforcement of the EU competition rules, are good solutions. The research methods used in this thesis are the legal dogmatic approach and the comparative law approach. The former enables the possibility of using the case law and legislation as a framework in which the difficulties concerning the application of parental and successor liability can be discussed while the latter ensures the comparison of the characteristics and judgments. The doctrines of parental and successor liability are both well established, but the application practice has caused several difficulties. These problems derive from, inter alia, the broadness and disjointed developed of the doctrines. There has been much recent case law dealing with these issues and having the potential to open up a considerable risk and to allocate strict liability for parent and successor companies.