The Sisu group had been unprofitable during 2004 and 2005 causing an employee in a subsidiary company to be made redundant on financial and production-related grounds in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act (55/2001). The employee that was made redundant was almost immediately replaced with another employee previously employed by another company in the Sisu group.
The fact that the subsidiary that made the employee redundant was profitable had no legal relevance in determining the legality of the redundancy. Although three different companies belonged to the group, Sisu had acted as a single employer entity and therefore was allowed to reduce the number of employees in its subsidiaries on grounds relating to the financial situation of the whole Sisu group. The Supreme Court considered that Sisu group's business was run in a manner that made it reasonable to consider the group of companies a single employer.
The Supreme Court 2010:20 - Subsidiary company was liable where its workforce consultation was not being completed prior to parent company's decision to centralise production
A foreign parent company (Fujitsu Siemens Computers (Holding) BV) had made a decision to centralise production in the group, which required the reduction of 450 employees in the Finnish subsidiary company's (Fujitsu Technology Solutions Oy) operations.
In its decision, the Supreme Court asked for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-44/08) and interpreted Finnish labour law in the light of Directive 59/98/EC on collective redundancies. According to the Supreme Court, the final decision of the parent company was made prior to the negotiations in the subsidiary company as a result of which the redundancy procedures infringed the provisions of the Act on Co-Operation within Undertakings (725/1978). Fujitsu Technology Solutions Oy was ordered to pay approximately 2,500.000 EUR as compensation to various trade unions in accordance with the Act on Co-Operation within Undertakings (725/1978).
Previously there was no express rule of law which required a foreign parent company to delay its decision until a Finnish subsidiary company has fully complied with its obligation to organise consultation negotiations with the employees or their representatives concerning planned re-organisations.