Q2 Employment Law Update: Key changes and developments
The second quarter of 2026 has seen continued developments in Norwegian employment law through legislative changes, proposals and case law. In this Q2 2026 Employment Law Update, we provide an overview of selected recent developments, summarize notable case laws from the Court of Appeal, and highlight issues that employers should monitor closely in the coming months.
Legislative Amendments
Section 4-1, seventh paragraph, of the Working Environment Act will be amended to expand the Ministry’s authority to regulate the use and enforcement of HSE cards in sectors where this is appropriate to safeguard workers’ health, safety and working environment. The amendments may require principals to include contractual clauses on HSE-card compliance in agreements with contractors and to verify that contractors comply with the applicable HSE-card rules.
The Ship Labour Act and the Norwegian International Ship Register (NIS) Act will be amended to implement Directive (EU) 2019/1152 on transparent and predictable working conditions for employees working on board Norwegian ships. The amendments introduce rules on presumptions and burden of proof where employment contracts lack information on whether the employment is permanent or temporary, or on the agreed FTE percentage. They also limit probationary periods in temporary contracts and provide that the employment relationship of seafarers held captive due to piracy or armed robbery remains in force until release and repatriation. Under the NIS Act, regulatory requirements for the content of employment contracts can no longer be derogated from by collective agreement.
Key Court Decisions from the Court of Appeal
LB-2025-103266: Lawful temporary employment of a post-production editor
On 20 March 2026, the Borgarting Court of Appeal considered whether several consecutive temporary employments of a post-production editor in a TV production company were lawful.
The employee had been temporarily employed under five employment contracts for a continuous period of almost three years. The key issue was whether the work was of a “temporary nature” under Section 14-9, second paragraph, letter a, of the Working Environment Act.
The Court of Appeal’s majority found that the employment was of a “temporary nature” and lawful. The majority placed weight on the fact that the contracts were linked to clearly time-limited needs for a post-production editor, that the tasks were clearly defined, and that the employments ended when the relevant projects were scheduled to be completed. The majority also emphasized that the company’s need for this type of work varied, and that it was not possible to organize the work in a way that allowed permanent employment. There were also no further employment opportunities for the relevant work when the final temporary employment expired.
The minority found that the temporary employment was not lawful, placing particular weight on the fact that the employee had been continuously temporarily employed for almost three years.
The judgment illustrates that consecutive temporary employment may be lawful where it is linked to clearly time-limited project needs, but that long, continuous periods of temporary employment may nevertheless create legal risk.
LG-2025-139235: Employee’s resignation not reclassified as a dismissal
On 21 April 2026, the Gulating Court of Appeal ruled on whether an employee’s resignation should be reclassified as a dismissal.
The employee had been offered a permanent position as a healthcare worker, with commencement in January 2023. Shortly before starting the position, she was called to a meeting with two managers, where she signed a resignation letter that had been prepared in advance by the employer. She later argued that the resignation was not genuine, as she had felt pressured and had not understood the implications of what she was signing.
The Court of Appeal found that there was no basis for reclassifying the resignation. The Court held that the employee herself had wished to resign, and that the purpose of the meeting was to clarify whether she in fact intended to take up the position, after the employer had received unclear signals in that regard. Although the employer had prepared a resignation letter in advance, this did not in itself mean that the employer had dismissed her.
The Court did not find it probable that the employee had been subjected to undue pressure, misled, or lacked an understanding of what she signed. Weight was also placed on her subsequent conduct, including the fact that she did not attend work when the position was due to start, continued as an on-call substitute elsewhere in the municipality, and only claimed that her resignation was invalid six months later.
At the same time, the Court of Appeal stated that the employer’s handling of the matter was unfortunate, among others because the meeting had not been documented by minutes or a protocol. However, this was not sufficient to render the resignation invalid.
LB-2026-1926: Unlawful termination of carpenter
On 15 June 2026, the Borgarting Court of Appeal ruled on whether a carpenter’s employment had been lawfully terminated. The carpenter was employed by a sole proprietorship that provided construction services, including the construction of new buildings, extensions and renovation work.
The first question was whether the employment was temporary and, if so, whether there was a lawful basis for the temporary employment. The Court of Appeal found that the parties had intended to enter into a temporary employment agreement. The question was whether the work was of “temporary nature” within the meaning of section 14-9, second paragraph, letter a, of the Working Environment Act. The Court found that the work performed was work ordinarily carried out by the business, and that the employment was not linked to a specific project. It was not clearly linked to a defined, short-term and unforeseen need for labor. It was not sufficient that the carpenter was temporarily employed because of general uncertainty about future assignments and order intake.
Then the Court further considered whether the employment relationship had been terminated by the employer or whether the carpenter left voluntarily. The majority found that the employer had terminated the employment. The majority emphasized that in case of uncertainty about whether the employment had ended, the employer was the closest to clarifying this.
The minority found that the employer’s message did not amount to dismissal. In the minority’s view, the message could be understood as indicating that the employer had no further work available, but it was not sufficiently clear to constitute a notice of termination. The minority considered that the employee had instead chosen to seek and start new employment.
The majority awarded the employee NOK 300,000 in compensation for financial loss and NOK 60,000 in non-economic damages as compensation for unfair dismissal.
LH-2026-19395: Invalid dismissal of employee on sick leave
On 16 June 2026, Hålogaland Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in a case concerning the validity of the dismissal of an employee on long-term sick leave.
The employee was employed as a cleaner working nights in a 50% position. The employee had frequent sickness absences based on self-certification from January 2023 and was subsequently 100% certified as unfit for work from April 2023. Until January/February 2024, the employee’s health situation was such that she was unable to work. From February 2024, various forms of accommodation were attempted, including, for a period, having her work two hours during the daytime instead of working nights. She subsequently worked as an additional employee for a few hours each night, four days per week. The employee was largely unable to work in accordance with the agreed accommodation measures. From the end of April, it was agreed that the employee would return to ordinary work at 80% of her 50% position. After this, she only attended work on a few days. After the employee’s holiday in July 2024, she was again 100% certified as unfit for work. She was dismissed in August 2024.
The Court of Appeal found that the dismissal was unfair and invalid.
The Court found that the employer had not fulfilled its duty to accommodate. The Court found that employer’s follow-up had been satisfactory until the beginning of January 2024. However, from spring 2024, the Court considered that there were shortcomings in the accommodation measures. This primarily concerned that the employer had not obtained assistance from qualified health personnel and that no realistic and professional plan for follow-up and accommodation was prepared. The Court also emphasized that the measures implemented and tested appeared random and not properly considered, and that the increase to 80% work after the expiry of the protected period was regarded as clearly premature and unjustifiable.
In addition, the Court also placed weight on the employee’s 16 years of seniority and the company’s size and financial resources, finding that the employer’s duty to accommodate was more extensive than in many other cases.
The Court further found that the employee was likely to be able to return to work within a reasonable period. Based on dialogue meetings between NAV, the employer and the employee’s doctor, the Court understood that the employee’s condition was improving. It was found that she would likely be able to return to work within one year.
In the balancing of interests, the Court acknowledged that the employee’s absence had created operational challenges, including difficulties finding a qualified substitute and increased workload for other employees. However, the employee’s interests carried greater weight. Dismissal would leave her without income and housing, as she rented accommodation through the company, and alternative housing options in the local area were limited. She also had shared care responsibilities for four children, making the social consequences particularly severe. Overall, given her long seniority, prospects of returning to work and the consequences of dismissal, the Court found that the dismissal was not reasonable or proportionate.
In this judgment, the Court of Appeal sets very strict requirements for the employer’s duty to accommodate. It is particularly worth noting the Court’s assessment that, depending on the circumstances, an employer may have a duty to obtain medical or occupational health advice from the occupational health service to assist with the individual accommodation process.
Legislative proposals
- The Ministry of Justice and Public Security has proposed amendments to the Immigration Act (Prop. 80 L (2025–2026)) to strengthen protection for foreign employees vulnerable to exploitation. The proposal would criminalize exploitation within the employment relationship itself, with a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment, or six years in serious cases.
- The Ministry of Children and Families has submitted NOU 2026:2, Policy for New Generations, for consultation. The report sets out proposals concerning parents’ rights in working life, including a review of the rules on parental leave, parental benefits and the duty to accommodate parents of young children. It also proposes a pilot scheme involving reduced working hours for parents of young children within the parental benefits scheme, aimed at occupational groups with limited flexibility. The consultation deadline is 5 September 2026.
Upcoming developments
Further developments are expected within Norwegian employment law:
- A working group appointed by the Ministry of Labour and Inclusion has recommended that the Ministry prepare guidance on when there may be grounds for entering into independent contractor agreements in the consultancy and advisory sector.
- The Supreme Court is expected to provide important clarifications in several pending cases, including classification of platform couriers in the Wolt case, the scope of “particularly independent position” and holiday rights for employees over 60 where public holidays fall within the holiday period.
- The Supreme Court will also hear the Saga Subsea case in grand chamber, concerning the application of the EU Temporary Agency Work Directive on staffing arrangements on the Norwegian continental shelf.
These developments should be monitored closely.