Introduction

Norwegian employment law and judgments from both the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal have evolved on specific topics during the last year. The legislative changes were imposed by the Norwegian Labour Party’s policies through the Norwegian government, while judgments from the courts are of course based on individual cases.

The main trends in the labour market and workplaces continue after the pandemic years, focusing on the following:

• working environment, claims for harassment and whistle-blowing cases;
• challenges connected to a continuous rise in sick leave rates;
• possibility of remote work;
• use of AI in the workplace; and
• challenges connected to employees from different generations.

The main legal changes seen this year relate to:

• psychosocial working environment;
• classification of independent contractors versus employees; and
• company-specific age limits.

Legal Acts

New legal requirements regarding working environment

The Norwegian Parliament recently adopted amendments to Section 4-3 of the Working Environment Act regarding requirements for the psychosocial working environment. The background for these changes is a report from the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority published in 2023. The report revealed, among other points, that the Working Environment Act’s regulation of the psychosocial working environment is fragmented and difficult to understand. This highlighted the need for more systematic and targeted prevention, as well as increased competence among HSE personnel. Psychosocial conditions have a major impact on health and sickness absence, while the prioritisation of the topic varies between industries. The report also highlighted growing international attention regarding psychosocial requirements within organisations, and emphasised the need for clearer regulatory requirements, as well as improved training for managers and elected representatives.

The changes involve a linguistic addition and definition of various working environment factors of the Section’s first and second paragraphs. The list is not exhaustive, but specifies the following factors that the employer must be more attentive to.

• Unclear or conflicting demands and expectations of work performance.
• Emotional demands and strains when working with people.
• Workload and time stress that means there is an imbalance between the work to be done and the time available.
• Support and help to conduct the work.

The amendment is not intended as a substantive change to current law, but rather to clarify the requirements for the psychosocial working environment. Nevertheless, there is reason to question whether the changes entail an increased/expanded responsibility for employers.

Unions have generally been positive about the changes, while employers have expressed concern that responsibility is being extended in a way that may have unintended consequences. Several consultation responses pointed out that the new criteria appear subjective and unsuitable as legal standards, which in turn can create a lack of clarity about what is actually required of the parties in a working environment.

Company-specific age limits will be abolished from 1 January 2026

The age limit, as in when the employer can terminate the employment relationship without any other cause than age, is by law 72 years. Until the end of this year, Norwegian law has allowed company-specific age limits to be set at 70 years.

From 1 January 2026, company-specific age limit will be abolished. As a result, all employees will have the right to stay in their positions and work until the age of 72. Dismissals due to age given before the age of 72 will be considered unjustified and illegal, unless the employee belongs to a profession where specific health and safety requirements apply.

Employers who practise company-specific age limits today may continue to apply these until 31 May 2025. After this date, employees are protected against dismissals due to age until they are 72 years old.

New measures to combat workplace crime from 1 July 2025

As of 1 July 2025, the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority has been granted expanded tools to uncover and combat workplace crime, following amendments to Chapter 18 of the Working Environment Act. These changes enable the authority to secure evidence during inspections, impose significant fines on individuals and gather information from third parties. Additionally, the Labour Inspection Authority can now request police assistance during inspections.

• Expanded authority to impose fines – The Labour Inspection Authority can impose fines directly during inspections, provided there are clear and observable violations. The statute of limitations for imposing such fines has been extended from two to five years.
• Fines for individuals – Starting 1 July 2025, the Labour Inspection Authority can impose fines on individuals who effectively lead the business, such as owners or managers, if they have intentionally or grossly negligently violated provisions of the Working Environment Act. The fine can amount to up to 25 times the basic amount in the National Insurance Scheme (NOK3,254,000).
• Police assistance requirement – The Labour Inspection Authority can request police assistance in conducting inspections and enforcing decisions, without needing to file a police report or request a temporary injunction.
• Securing evidence during inspections – The Labour Inspection Authority has been granted expanded powers to secure evidence without the consent of the object of the inspection, by obtaining a court order. Evidence can be secured if there is a likelihood of violations of the Working Environment Act, and it must be necessary and not disproportionately intrusive.
• Expanded right to use physical force – Inspectors can enter workplaces using physical force, including cutting locks or calling a locksmith.
• Gathering information from third parties – The Labour Inspection Authority can gather necessary information from third parties, such as suppliers or customers, when deemed proportionate. This helps ensure the case is properly informed.

The Labour Inspection Authority has observed that workplace crime is evolving with more professional and complex methods, harming employees and businesses. The amendments aim to address serious violations and protect employees.

Amendments to the National Insurance Act

In June 2025, the Norwegian Parliament adopted several amendments to Chapter 13 of the National Insurance Act concerning occupational injury coverage. The new amendments have not yet come into force. Norwegian legislation is based on a dual-track system for occupational injury coverage, consisting of special benefits under the National Insurance Act for occupational injuries and diseases, and a mandatory occupational injury insurance scheme requiring employers to insure their employees. Certain occupational diseases may be equated with occupational injuries, entitling affected individuals to both social security benefits and compensation. However, this requires that the specific disease is included in the lists of occupational diseases.

Key points of the legislative amendments

• Safety valve – A safety valve has been introduced to ensure flexibility in the occupational disease regulations in response to a constantly evolving labour market. This valve is linked to the provisions of the National Insurance Act and aims to mitigate the rigidity of the listing system. Previously, only the Occupational Injury Insurance Act including a safety valve qualified, but now a common valve has been established for both frameworks, contributing to harmonisation and simplification.
• Advisory committee – An advisory committee on occupational diseases will be established to regularly assess which diseases should be included on the list. Appointed by the Ministry, the committee will work closely with the medical community to ensure a sound scientific basis for proposed changes. It is suggested that employees and employer organisations participate in the committee, providing social partners with greater opportunity to take an active role in the field of occupational injuries.
• Criteria for new diseases – Knowledge-based criteria for new diseases to be included on the list will be maintained. Diseases that no longer meet the criteria will be removed. The Ministry is granted the authority to issue regulations with rules for adding new diseases.
• Professional guidance – A professional guidance document will be prepared for the use of the new occupational disease list, ensuring effective investigations, faster case processing, and improved professional quality in decision-making.
• Electronic reporting – Employers and other obligated reporters must submit injury reports electronically to the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration, with exceptions where electronic reporting is not feasible.

These amendments aim to provide greater flexibility and update the regulatory framework in line with today’s labour market and societal developments.

Norwegian wage conditions to be adopted on all ships in domestic traffic

With effect from 1 July 2025, the Norwegian Parliament has changed the scope of the General Application of Collective Bargaining Agreements Act to include ships engaged in so-called domestic traffic, independent of flag state. This is to facilitate the inclusion of Norwegian wage conditions on board ships that transport goods between Norwegian and European ports – and also those that take cargoes between Norwegian ports (cabotage). In order for this to have an effect, the trade unions must petition for general application; they have not yet put forward such petition.

In addition, with effect from 1 January 2026, it has been decided that licensees operating on the Norwegian continental shelf must ensure that employeeson board ships that provide services to them have Norwegian wage conditions. The government must put in place regulations to regulate the implementation of this in more detail.

If a new Norwegian government is formed from September 2025, it is believed that all this will be reversed. This is because full coverage of Collective Bargaining Agreements in this branch already exists, and the changes would inflict the principle of leaving questions on wages to the Unions and employers’ associations.

Case Law

Classification of independent contractors versus employees

Following the 2024 amendment regarding the definition of “employee” of the Working Environment Act, including the switch regarding laying the burden of proof on the company engaging the worker, there have been notable cases drawing the distinction between contractors and employees.

Firstly, the Borgarting Court of Appeal’s judgment on 27 January 2025 in the case of Chorus of Soloist Singers acknowledged the soloist’s freedom to choose which assignment she would accept, and her influence on both the chorus’s activities and her own general terms and conditions.

Overall, the Court of Appeal found that the singer’s freedom and influence meant that the relationship deviated from the typical relationship of dependence and subordination in an employee relationship. On this basis, the court found that there was no need for the protective rules of the Working Environment Act. Thus, the contractor’s contract prevailed.

Appeal to the Supreme Court was not permitted. The judgment is therefore final.

Secondly, Norway has had its first – and important in principle – case (the Wolt Couriers case) regarding platform work; matching supply and demand for paid labour with the aid of a digital platform/algorithm.

Even though the EU’s Platform Work Directive entered into force on 1 December 2024 (and is EEA-relevant), the member states must implement the directive in their national legislation within two years. The core question has been whether platform workers should be considered employees or contractors. The aim is, among other things, to improve the working conditions for people who perform platform work and to promote transparency and accountability in the way algorithms manage such work.

In the original Commission proposal, criteria were proposed that would determine whether an employment relationship existed, based on the extent to which the digital platform controlled the work. However, this was not adopted, and the classification is largely left to regulation in the individual member states. Due to the above-mentioned new Norwegian definition of “employee” and the switch regarding laying the burden of proof on the contracting company (platform), the presumption rule of the Directive might therefore not have much impact in Norway.

In particular, in WoltCouriers, the District Court of Oslo pronounced on 4 April 2025 that Wolt couriers were entitled to permanent employment. The judgment is the first to consider management via algorithms in working conditions in Norway. For the court, it was an important factor that the applications in Wolt’s platform work with the help of algorithms, which, among other things (according to the court’s opinion), distribute the assignments, and detail and monitor the implementation. The platform thus exercised a considerable degree of management and control. This again led to the need of protection from the Act. The case has been appealed.

The two cases point out that companies must have a conscious attitude towards the organisation of their activities, especially when it comes to the affiliation of labour.

Supreme Court judgment ruling regarding economic compensation when an independent contractor is considered to be an employee

On 20 December 2024 the Supreme Court ruled in a decision regarding the economic consequences when an independent contractor was considered to be an employee (the Recovery Case). The question was whether an independent contractor should be compensated for overtime work and holiday pay when defined as an employee.

The Supreme Court concluded that the mandatory rules of the Norwegian Employment Act regarding working time and pay should be followed, unless the parties had a valid agreement saying otherwise. As their contract did not reflect the real situation, working time exceeding the normal working hours as defined in the Act should be seen as overtime work with overtime pay. If some of this pay by proof had already been paid out, there should not be double compensation. The Supreme Court also ruled that the employee was entitled to full holiday pay and that this claim was not outdated.

Supreme Court ruling clarifies occupational injury coverage during breaks when working remotely

On 2 September 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment that provides important practical clarification of the scope of occupational injury coverage when an employee is working remotely. The judgment states that employees have weaker protection against occupational injuries when working remotely rather than at their office (ordinary place of work).

The case concerned a doctor who, after having worked more than 11 hours on a patient admission on Saturday, worked remotely on Sunday morning, catching up on medical literature related to the patient admission. Before her scheduled return to the hospital, she took a meal break in her private garden. On her way out to the garden, the doctor stumbled and sustained permanent injuries to her foot.

According to the relevant legislation, occupational injury only applies to injuries sustained while “the employee is at work at the workplace during working hours”. When work is performed remotely, a close connection between the work and the accident is required, and this requirement is interpreted strictly. For breaks at the regular workplace, the requirements are less stringent. For breaks during remote work, the majority of the Supreme Court found that this does not apply to remote work due to the private nature of the home and the blurred boundaries between work and private life.

The majority also found no support for a broader interpretation of the connection requirement in case law, preparatory works or purpose-based considerations. Therefore, three out of five judges concluded that the doctor’s injury during a break while working from home was not covered by the statutory requirement that the injury must occur while “the employee is at work at the workplace during working hours”.

Given the widespread use of remote work in recent years, this is a judgment that employers should inform employees about when discussing remote work – employees have weaker protection against occupational injuries when working remotely. In this way, employees can make an informed choice and consider whether they need to obtain additional protection – for example, supplementary insurance.

Supreme Court ruling clarifies the boundaries of “occupational accident” under the Occupational Injury Insurance Act

On 29 October 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment that provides clarification of what constitutes a “work accident” under the Occupational Injury Insurance Act. The judgment establishes that falling, while in the workplace, caused by illness or fainting is not covered by occupational injury insurance, unless there is an external influence or an increased risk connected to the employment situation.

The central question was whether fainting at work, followed by injury in the subsequent fall, should be regarded as a “work accident” under the Occupational Injury Insurance Act. The majority – four out of five judges – confirmed that the concept of a work accident under the Act fundamentally requires a “sudden and external event”, meaning the injury must be caused by something external to the employee’s internal condition. The same applies to falls on a flat surface without any external influencing factor. Furthermore, the cause of the injury must have a connection to employment or risk factors present in the workplace.

The judgment provides clarification of the requirements for obtaining occupational injury insurance coverage in this area. Injuries resulting from illness or indisposition leading to a fall in the workplace will, as a general rule, not be covered unless the fall is caused by external influence (for example, slipping on something, tripping over an object), or if the employment entails a particular risk for the specific type of injury. This applies even if the National Insurance (NAV) has approved the injury under the National Insurance Act.

The decision also demonstrates that the concept of “work accident” under the Occupational Injury Insurance Act and the National Insurance Act is currently interpreted differently, which may result in varying coverage for the same incident.