Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 1492/1997 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses claim that business transfer occurred under Labor Code 7.2 when employer sold business to related party.

Case Number KKO 1492/1997
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the claim that a business transfer under Labor Code Section 7(2) occurred when an employer sold its business to a related party. The employer, facing financial difficulties, terminated employees and transferred operations to a commanditee company where the employer remained a shareholder and board member. The court ruled that the continuity of operations and the employer's retained control meant no legal transfer of the business took place.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Työsopimuslain 7 §:n 2 momentti; A business transfer under Section 7(2) of the Act on the Termination of Employment Contracts does not occur when the employer sells the business to a related party while retaining control and continuing operations.

Keywords

AI generated
business transfer related party sale labor code section 7 employment termination indemnification liability commanditee company retained control

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Työsopimuslain 7 § 2 momentti
AI generated
kko-other_1997_1490
Supreme Court dismisses claim that business transfer occurred under Labor Code 7 § 2 due to employer insolvency and partial asset transfer.
labour_1993_76
Labor court rules collective agreement binds successor company after business transfer without termination.
kko-precedent_2001_44
Bus route transfer via tender not deemed business transfer due to lack of significant tangible assets.
labour_2015_5
Labor court orders unions to pay fines for violating peace obligations during business transfer disputes.
kko-precedent_1990_129
Supreme Court rules that a business transfer under Labor Code 7(2) bars termination and mandates severance pay.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Taloudellisissa vaikeuksissa ollut autoliike oli tuloksetta neuvotellut työntekijöidensä kanssa työaikojen muuttamisesta ja palkkojen alentamisesta sekä tämän jälkeen irtisanonut työntekijöiden työsopimukset ja siirtänyt huolto- ja korjaamotoiminnan kommandiittiyhtiölle, jonka vastuunalainen yhtiömies oli autoliikkeen osakkeenomistaja ja hallituksen jäsen. Kommandiittiyhtiö oli jatkanut toimintaa samoissa tiloissa ja samoilla välineillä sekä osittain samalla henkilökunnalla.

Kysymys siitä, oliko tapahtunut työsopimuslain 7 §:n 2 momentissa tarkoitettu liikkeen luovutus, ja vahingonkorvausvelvollisuudesta. Ks. S-95/1071