New Developments
Increase in the Maximum Level of Administrative Fines as of 1 July 2024
As of 1 July 2024, the maximum level of administrative fines under the Working Environment Act was increased from 15 times the National Insurance basic amount (approximately EUR 180,000 as of April 2026) to 50 times the basic amount (approximately EUR 597,000 as of April 2026) or four percent of the undertaking’s annual turnover. The highest of these amounts constitutes the applicable upper limit.
The amendment was motivated by several policy considerations aimed at strengthening compliance with labour law regulations. A key objective is to intensify the fight against labour market crime and ensure that businesses do not profit from violating labour law legislation. By increasing the level of administrative fines, the authorities seek to reinforce their deterrent effect, making breaches of the rules less economically attractive. In addition, the reform is intended to provide the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority with a more flexible and effective enforcement tool, enabling it to respond more proportionately and efficiently to violations across different types of cases.
Amendments to the WEA as of 1 January 2024: Expansion of employer responsibility within corporate groups and strengthened rights for employees
As of 1 January 2024, several changes to the Working Environment Act entered into force:
- The definition of an “employee” was clarified, making it easier to assess whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Furthermore, a presumption rule was introduced, stating that a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the client shows it to be highly probable that an independent contractual relationship exists.
- Employer obligations for group companies are extended during downsizing. The employer’s obligation to search for other suitable work during downsizing is extended to apply to all group companies. Furthermore, an employee’s preferential right after redundancy is extended to apply to suitable work in all group companies. The new provisions also apply to undertakings in Norway that are part of a foreign group. Nevertheless, the requirement to offer other suitable work and the extension of employees’ preferential rights are restricted to activities in Norway.
- Groups with more than 50 employees are subjected to an obligation to establish frameworks for co-operation, information and consultation between the groups and the employees in the group. The obligation to establish the frameworks lays with the parent company.
- Employees who have been temporarily employed on a continuous basis for three years are entitled to permanent employment. Under the previous rules, such permanent employment occurred after three or four years of continuous employment, depending on the legal basis of the temporarily employment.
- More companies must establish working environment committees and elect safety representatives. Under the previous rules, undertakings with more than 50 employees had an obligation to establish working environment committees. This threshold is lowered to 30 employees. Furthermore, working environment committees shall also be formed in undertakings with ten or more employees when so required by any of the parties at the undertaking, as opposed to the previous threshold of 20 employees. According to the previous rules, a different arrangement than safety representatives may be agreed upon at undertakings with less than ten employees, including agreeing that the undertaking shall not have a safety representative. As of 1 January 2024, this only applies to undertakings with less than five employees. The safety representative’s duties are also extended to apply correspondingly to employees hired from staffing agencies and individual contractors performing work in close connection to the undertaking.
- Also, before 1 January 2024, employer had an annual obligation to consult the use of part-time employment, temporary employment and hiring from staffing agencies with the employees’ elected representatives. As of 1 January 2024, employers have a corresponding obligation to consult the use of individual contractors and the purchase of services from other undertakings which will impact the workforce situation at the employer. This consultation obligation applies annually, and when one of the parties requires so.
Amendments to the WEA as of 1 July 2024: Implementation of the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions
In June 2023, the government proposed a series of amendments to the WEA, aiming to secure more safe and predictable working conditions. The amendments came into force 1 July 2024 and implement EU directive 2019/1152.
New requirements to employment contracts
Firstly, an expansion of the current list of required information in the employment contract entered into force 1 July 2024. These include:
- If there is no fixed workplace, the employment contract must specify that the employee may work at different locations or have the freedom to decide where they will work.
- Previously, employers had an obligation to inform of the employee’s right to holiday, holiday pay and the rules for determining holiday time in the employment contract. This requirement is expanded to apply correspondingly to other paid absence by the employer.
- The employment contract shall state the applicable procedure if one of the parties wishes to terminate the employment relationship and if the employer wishes to dismiss an employee.
- The various components of the salary must be specified separately in the employment contract.
- If daily and weekly working hours vary, the employment contract must specify this and stipulate or provide a basis for calculating when the work will be performed.
- The arrangements that apply for shift changes and work beyond agreed working hours, including payment for such work, shall be specified in the employment contract.
- If the employee is hired out from a staffing agency, the employment contract must include information of the identity of the hiring company.
- The employment contract shall specify the right to training provided by the employer, if any.
- Any benefits related to social security offered by the employer, as well as the names of institutions receiving payments from the employer in this regard, must be stated in the employment contract.
Furthermore, certain additional information must now be included in employment contracts of employees sent abroad to work.
Additionally, the time frame for presenting a written employment contract is reduced from one month to seven days. Similarly, the deadline for implementing changes to the employment contract is shortened from one month to the same day that the changes take effect.
Furthermore, two presumption rules have entered into force. The first rule stipulates that if the employer has not explicitly stated in the employment contract that the employment relationship is temporary, it shall be presumed to be permanent, unless otherwise are shown to be highly probable. The rule aims to formalize existing law and does not entail any material changes.
The second rule applies when the employer has not provided information regarding the position’s scope (the full-time equivalent percentage). In this scenario, the employee’s claim regarding the position’s scope will be presumed and enforced, unless otherwise are shown to be highly probable.
New rules for probationary periods
Under the previous rule, a probationary period of up to six months can be agreed upon. Pursuant to the new rules entered into force 1 July 2024, the maximum duration of a probationary period is limited to half the length of the employment relationship if it is temporary and shorter than 12 months.
Additionally, a new rule regarding the probationary period when an employee’s contract is renewed for the purpose of continuing in a position essentially similar to the previous position with the employer has entered into force. In such cases, the renewal itself will not permit a new probationary period. The amendment is a codification of current law and does not entail any material changes.
Nonetheless, in the event of renewing an employment contract for permanent employment, it is still permitted to agree upon a new probationary period if the combined duration of the employee’s prior employment and the new probationary period do not exceed six months. This rule is ultimately aimed at situations where the employee has had a short-term temporary employment (with an even shorter initial probationary period) and he/she is subsequently offered a similar permanent position.
Request for more predictable and safe working conditions
Moreover, a new rule providing part-time or temporarily employed employees the right to request a form of employment with more predictable and secure working conditions has entered into force. The employer is obligated to provide a written response to such request within a month. This right only applies to employees who have served at the employer for more than six months, have fulfilled any probationary period, and if more than six months have transpired since the employee’s last request.
Enhanced Enforcement Tools for the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority as of 1 July 2025
The Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority (Arbeidstilsynet) already had several tools and sanctions at its disposal to address violations of labour legislation. The Authority can issue orders to rectify violations and impose coercive fines and halt the undertaking’s activities until the orders are complied with. Further, the Authority can impose administrative fines and report violations to the police.
However, the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion found that these measures were insufficient against the most unscrupulous actors. Changes effective 1 July 2025 target businesses that evade inspections. While such cases are rare, they can cause significant harm to both employees and the broader labour market.
Although the changes are primarily motivated by the most unscrupulous actors in the labour market, they may affect all companies. Therefore, all businesses should familiarize themselves with the sanctions and enforcement tools now available to the Labour Inspection Authority.
Access to Information
Access to information is crucial for effective inspections. From 1 July 2025, the Authority can request information not only from the inspected business but also from third parties, such as suppliers or partners, under certain conditions.
In addition, with a court approval, it can secure evidence from company premises, storage locations, or private homes, including documents and electronic data. This tool is intended for rare and serious cases due to its intrusive nature.
Expanded right of physical access
The Authority shall always have free access to any premises subject to the Working Environment Act. If the Authority is denied access to such premises, it now may take the necessary measures to gain access, for example by cutting locks or calling a locksmith.
Changes in the Authority to Impose Administrative Fines
Previously, the Authority could only impose administrative fines on companies. The Authority can now issue fines to individuals in leadership positions, in addition to companies, if they act intentionally or with gross negligence. Individual fines are capped at 25 G (average National Insurance basic amount, approximately 280 000 Euros), while company fines remain at 50 G (approximately 560 000 Euros) or 4% of annual turnover.
Further, the statute of limitations for fines has been extended from two to five years. Fines can also now be imposed on-site for clear violations.
Police Assistance and Access Orders
As of 1 July 2025, the Authority may require police assistance when necessary during inspections and enforcement. The police may use force to the extent necessary and reasonable.
Company-Specific Age Limits Abolished as of 1 January 2026
Under the Working Environment Act, an employer may legally terminate an employment relationship when the employee reaches the age of 72, without requiring any further justification.
A lower age limit may be decided and applied where necessary out of regard for health or safety. Previously, employers also had the option to establish a company-specific age limit of 70 years.
The access of internal company age limits was removed as of 1 January 2026. As a result, all employees will have the right to work until the age of 72. Terminating an employee due to age as such before reaching 72 will therefore be considered unjustified. However, in professions where specific health and safety requirements apply, a lower age limit may still be permitted.
One of the main reasons behind the amendment is that the age limit for public sector employees is set to increase from 70 to 72 years. The government aims for 72 years to become the standard retirement age across the labour market and highlights several challenges associated with internal company age limits. They argued that the previous system may led to employers losing valuable expertise due to the strict enforcement of these limits. Internal age limits also provided little flexibility in cases where both the employee and the company wish to extend the employment relationship.
- Clarification of Requirements for the Psychosocial Working Environment as of 1 January 2026
The Working Environment Act Section 4-1 requires that the physical and psychosocial working environment must be “fully satisfactory.” Furthermore, Section 4-3 of the Act specifies the requirements for the psychosocial working environment. The Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority found that employers often perceive the listed factors as exhaustive.
The Ministry found that the previous wording of the provision contributed to employers’ focusing too narrowly on certain aspects of the psychosocial working environment. Further, surveys revealed that many employees experience a stressful psychosocial working environment and that work-related ailments are increasing, particularly among younger employees.
In order to avoid that the listed requirements in the WEA Section 4-3 are seen as exhaustive and to promote a broader and healthier approach, a new first and second paragraph was added to Section 4-3 of the Working Environment Act 1 January 2026, clarifying the requirements for the psychosocial working environment.
The first paragraph of the WEA Section 4-3 now establishes that:
“The work shall be organised, planned and carried out to ensure that the psychosocial working environment factors in the undertaking are fully justifiable with regard to employee health, safety and welfare.”
The second paragraph provides the following examples of psychosocial working environment factors:
“a. unclear or conflicting requirements and expectations in the work,
- emotional demands and burdens relating to working with people,
- workload and time pressures that result in an imbalance between the work to be performed and the time available,
- support and help in the work.”
The Ministry has emphasized that the listed factors are not exhaustive.
The purpose of the amendment is to highlight that the psychosocial aspect is an important part of a fully satisfactory working environment, and to give employers better guidance on what factors they need to consider to create a healthy psychosocial working environment.
In the consultation process leading up to the proposal of the amendment, several employer organizations expressed concern that the changes would impose stricter obligations on employers and lead to more conflicts and whistleblowing cases. The Ministry, however, clarified that the amendment does not entail any substantive change to the current law, but also adjusted the final text of the provision somewhat based on the input. Employers therefore, in principle, do not need to take any immediate action.
There has recently been a large amount of new case law in the employment-law area from the Norwegian Supreme Court. The most interesting cases are referred to here.
Not Covered by Occupational Injury Insurance During Breaks While Working From Home
The case concerned a doctor employed at a hospital in Oslo. One day, she began her workday from home. During her lunch break, she planned to travel to the hospital to continue her work afterward. While on her break, she went out into her garden to eat. On her way outside, she tripped and sustained permanent injuries to her foot. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the injury could be recognized as an occupational injury.
Under Section 13-6, second paragraph, of the National Insurance Act, occupational injury coverage applies to injuries that occur while the employee is working, at the workplace, and during working hours. The key issue for the Supreme Court was therefore whether the employee was “at work” at the time of the accident.
The Supreme Court emphasized that there must be a sufficient connection between the work and the accident. Traditionally, case law has applied a relatively generous assessment of this connection requirement for incidents occurring at the ordinary workplace. For example, accidents that occur during breaks or during visits to occupational health services at the workplace are generally covered.
However, the Supreme Court found that this generous approach could not be applied when the employee is on a break at home. The majority of the Supreme Court pointed out that working from home differs from working at the ordinary workplace in several respects: the home is also where the individual stays outside working hours, and it contains various features, objects, and conditions that may cause accidents but are unrelated to the work itself.
The Supreme Court concluded that injuries occurring while the employee is at home and on a break do not have the necessary connection to the work or working life. The majority therefore held that the doctor was not “at work” at the time of the accident and was consequently not entitled to occupational injury coverage.
Following this judgment, the general principle should be that injuries sustained during breaks while working from home are not classified as occupational injuries.
Financial Settlement Following Misclassification as Individual Contractor
The case concerned three healthcare workers who had been engaged as independent contractors. The healthcare workers initiated legal proceedings against the employer, alleging that they had been incorrectly classified and that they were, in substance, employees. On this basis, they claimed entitlement to retroactive payment of holiday pay, overtime remuneration, and other statutory benefits. The employer accepted that the workers had been misclassified as individual contractors but contested the claims for additional payments.
The issue before the Supreme Court was how the financial settlement following the incorrect classification should be determined.
The Supreme Court held that the mandatory provisions of the Working Environment Act must form the basis for calculating any supplementary entitlements, unless validly derogated from by agreement. This implies, for example, that work exceeding the statutory limits of 9 hours per 24 hours and 40 hours per 7 days constitutes overtime and must be compensated in accordance with the Act’s provisions governing overtime work.
However, deductions must be made if the amounts already paid fully or partly compensate for the claims asserted. This assessment will necessarily depend on the specific circumstances of each individual case. Furthermore, the burden of proof regarding any overcompensation rests with the employer.
With regard to holiday pay, the Supreme Court stated that it should be calculated on the basis of the payments made under the contractor agreement. The employer further argued that parts of the claim for holiday pay were time-barred. The Supreme Court stated that the limitation period runs from the earliest point at which the employee could have claimed payment of the holiday pay. Since the healthcare workers had never arranged for or taken holiday leave, the holiday pay claims had not yet fallen due, and the limitation period had therefore not begun to run.
Injury Following Fainting Not Recognised as an Occupational Injury
A lift technician fainted at work, fell, and struck his head on a concrete floor at the workplace.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the injury could be classified as an occupational injury. The decisive question was whether the incident constituted a “work accident” under the Occupational Injury Insurance Act.
The Supreme Court stated that, under the Act, the injury must be caused by a sudden and external event. Illness and someone suddenly becoming unwell, which cannot be attributed to any external event or influence, fall outside the definition of an occupational accident.
The Court emphasised that the cause of the injury was the technician’s fainting episode, which led to the fall and head injury, rather than the impact with the floor itself. On this basis, the Court concluded that the incident did not qualify as a work accident under the Occupational Injury Insurance Act. Consequently, the injury was not recognised as an occupational injury.
E-mail Considered as Whistleblowing
The case involved a shop steward who assisted a work colleague in a meeting with, among others, an HR manager, where the colleague was given a written warning. On the following day, the shop steward sent an email to a manager in the company wherein he criticized the HR manager’s behaviour in the meeting. The basis for the written warning was, according to the manager, that the shop steward had violated the requirement for considerate conduct according to labour regulations. The shop steward was later relocated. In a subsequent court case concerning the validity of the relocation, compensatory damages were also claimed under Section 2 A-5 of the Working Environment Act (“WEA”) for retaliation after whistleblowing. The compensation claim was limited to the question of whether this email to the management was considered as whistleblowing under Section 2 A-1 and Section 2 A-2 of the WEA.
The Supreme Court’s majority concluded that the email met the requirements for whistleblowing. It was considered decisive if there were reasonable grounds for the employer to perceive the email as reporting issues of concern in the company. The email expressed more than just the shop steward’s disagreement with the company’s warning to the colleague. It referred to behaviour contrary to the company’s work regulations on considerate and correct conduct, and therefore, described an issue of concern in the company. The Court of Appeal’s judgement, which concluded that the email was not to be considered as whistleblowing, was set aside.
In this judgement, the Supreme Court gives the concept of whistleblowing, according to Section 2 A-5 of the WEA, a wide application. The ruling presents a challenge for employers to distinguish between general criticism and whistleblowing. The judgement, therefore, emphasizes that employers must make thorough assessments when they receive critical statements from employees, regardless of the form in which the statement is made. This may particularly cause doubt in cases where it is not explicitly stated that the statement is intended to be regarded as whistleblowing.
Limited duty to Consider Reassignment in Termination Cases
For a dismissal to be objectively justified on the basis of the employer’s circumstances, it is a requirement that the employer has no “other suitable work” within the undertaking to offer the employee. In a 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that even in cases of dismissal based on the employee’s circumstances, there is a “limited and situation-specific” duty to offer other suitable work.
The case concerned a healthcare worker employed by Oslo municipality. He lost his authorization due to insufficient professional competence. The municipality subsequently dismissed him. The employee argued that the dismissal was invalid because the municipality had not offered him another suitable position.
The Supreme Court stated that a duty to offer alternative suitable work may be derived from the requirement that a dismissal must be objectively justified under Section 15-7 of the Working Environment Act, as well as from the obligation to balance the interests of the employee and the employer. At the same time, the Court emphasized that certain conditions must be met for such a duty to arise:
First, the employer’s interests may weigh against reassignment, for example where serious breaches of duty have led to a loss of trust in the employee. As a general rule, reassignment will only be relevant where the reason for dismissal is linked to the specific position. The core of the duty to reassign lies in situations where the employee cannot be blamed for the dismissal.
Second, the employee’s interest in remaining with the employer must be particularly strong. This may, for instance, be the case where there are significant social considerations that make it difficult to obtain new employment, where the employee has long seniority, or where the employer can be blamed for the employee’s inability to meet the job requirements.
Third, there must be a vacant position within the undertaking.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court stressed that “considerable weight” is required before a dismissal will be deemed unjustified solely because no offer of alternative suitable work has been made.
In the case, the Court found the dismissal to be objectively justified. Although the employee’s interest in continuing employment with the municipality was considered significant, the lack of an offer of alternative work did not render the dismissal a disproportionate response. The Court emphasized that the municipality had implemented a number of measures to make the employment relationship work. Furthermore, given the circumstances, the municipality had conducted reasonable inquiries into whether other suitable positions were available.
No Obligation to Consider Reassignment in Summary Dismissal Cases
Considering the decision referred to above, a question arose as to whether a corresponding duty to consider reassignment in cases of summary dismissal (dismissal with immediate effect) exists.
The case concerned a nurse who was summarily dismissed after slapping a mentally disabled service user across the cheek with an open hand. The Court of Appeal found the summary dismissal unlawful, partly because the employer had not considered reassigning the nurse. The employer appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether there is a corresponding duty to consider reassignment in summary dismissal cases, and if so, what the scope of such a duty would be.
The Supreme Court referred to its decision from 2024, where it held that no duty to consider reassignment exists in termination cases involving serious breaches of duty that undermine the employer’s trust in the employee.
The Supreme Court emphasised that summary dismissal cases involve serious breaches of duty on the part of the employee, which usually mean that the employer no longer has trust in the employee. Since the Supreme Court in the 2024 case found that there was no duty to consider reassignment in termination cases involving such breaches, there was even stronger reason not to impose such a duty in summary dismissal cases.
The Supreme Court therefore concluded that employers have no duty to consider reassignment in dismissal cases.
Legal Rules for Termination Under Severance Agreements for Senior Executives
The Norwegian Working Environment Act allows (only) the chief executive of the undertaking to relinquish the statutory employment protection in a prior agreement in exchange for compensation on termination. On 30 January 2026, the Supreme Court rendered a new judgment in a case between a municipality and a former municipal chief executive. The Supreme Court’s ruling provides clarification on the applicable requirements when an employer decides that a chief executive must step down pursuant to such an agreement.
The case concerned a municipal chief executive who, upon employment, had waived her rights under Chapter 15 of the Working Environment Act in exchange for severance pay, cf. section 15-16 (2). After only a few months, the municipal council made a decision that she should step down immediately with severance compensation.
The key question before the Supreme Court was whether there are any legal limitations at all on the employer’s decision to terminate an employment relationship if the employee has waived the statutory employment protection in exchange for severance pay.
Further, the Supreme Court considered whether the general standard of reasonableness that applies to the employer’s management prerogative also applies to such decision to resign under section 15-16(2) of the Working Environment Act.
The Supreme Court held that the employer is subject to “certain minimum procedural requirements” even when making a decision on resignation under section 15-16 (2) of the Working Environment Act. For instance, the employee should be notified if the employer is considering enforcing the severance agreement and be given the opportunity to comment. Absence of such notice will, however, not affect the employers right to enforce the agreement.
The Supreme Court also stated the courts may assess whether the decision on resignation constitutes an abuse of the employer’s right to govern, including whether the decision appears arbitrary or is based on irrelevant considerations. The courts may also assess whether the decision is based on incorrect facts.
Finally, the Supreme Court clarified that an agreed resignation with severance pay does not constitute a “dismissal” under labour law, meaning that the special procedural rules for individual decisions under the Public Administration Act do not apply. This is particularly significant for employers in public sector.
The Supreme Court concluded that the municipality had not acted negligently in a manner giving rise to liability. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Overtime Supplement for Part-Time Employees – judgement from the Deputy Court
The Working Environment Act stipulates that the right to overtime supplement only arises when an employee works beyond the statutory limits for normal working hours — that is, more than nine hours within a 24-hour period or 40 hours within seven days. The threshold for entitlement to overtime supplement is the same for both full-time and part-time employees. Work performed beyond the agreed working hours, but not exceeding normal working hours, does not give rise to overtime supplement.
This means that part-time employees are much less likely to be entitled to overtime supplement than full-time employees, as they must work more than what is considered a full-time position before entitlement to overtime compensation arises, unless otherwise agreed with the employer.
The European Court of Justice has clarified in two recent rulings (C-660/20 Lufthansa and C-184/22 and C-185/22 Dialyse) that part-time employees are treated differently when a common threshold for overtime supplement is applied to both full-time and part-time employees. The question is whether this differential treatment is nonetheless lawful.
There are sharp disagreements between trade unions and employer associations in Norway. Employee organizations argue that part-time employees should be entitled to overtime supplement once they work beyond their agreed working percentage, while employer associations argue that the current arrangement—with a common threshold for overtime supplement—can be maintained.
The Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion has also established a joint committee to assess the implications of these rulings for Norwegian law. Furthermore, the largest trade union in Norway, LO, has filed the first lawsuit to clarify whether part-time employees are entitled to overtime pay for work beyond their agreed working percentage. Recently, we received the judgement from the District Court.
It concerned a part-time retail employee who claimed overtime pay for hours worked beyond his agreed percentage of full-time employment. The majority of the court found in his favour, holding that it constituted unlawful discrimination to apply the same threshold for entitlement to overtime pay to both part-time and full-time employees.
The judgment therefore implies that employers must pay overtime to part-time employees from the first hour they work beyond their agreed working percentage, even where the employee has consented to or requested additional working hours.
However, the judgment is not yet final and is likely to be appealed. The matter has therefore not been conclusively settled. Until the legal position is clarified, employers should take into account the possibility that work performed beyond an employee’s agreed working percentage may have to be compensated as overtime.
