Samuli Hiilesniemi The Regulation of the Measurement of Working Time in Finland ABSTRACT Finland has a long history of regulating the ­recording of working time. The current law is, for the most part, relatively well aligned with Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC, as the pri­mary obligation for employers to maintain a “working time register” is objectively unambig­uous and well established in jurisprudence. Recent changes in the law, however, have seen the introduction of highly flexible working time arrangements that are not necessarily in compliance with the minimum requirements of the Directive. These requirements were clari­fied by the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-55/18, which has not been widely discussed or assessed in relation to the current legislation in Finland. This paper aims to provide insights as to why the judgment has attracted so little scrutiny in Finland to date and answer the question of whether it still could, or should, lead to changes in the ­national legislation. INTRODUCTION As a Nordic country, the common characteristics of the Nor­dic labour market model, i.e. the important role of the social partners and the key function of collective agreements as a tool for regulating the labour market, are highly applicable to Finland. Although in recent years there have been marked changes in the country due to political and socio-economic developments, trade union density in Finland remains gener­ally high, and most segments of the labour market are covered by collective agreements at the industry level. 1 Consequently, collective agreements remain the most important tool of labour market regulation. While there are numerous areas in which derogations from the Working Time Act, Finland’s pri­mary legislative instrument on working time, are allowed in collective agreements at the national level, Section 32, which deals with the recording of working hours, i.e. the“working time register”, is not among them. As a result, the obligations concerning the recording of working time are not stipulated in collective agreements and are, rather exceptionally, found only in the law. The European Court of Justice(CJEU) delivered its judg­ment on case C-55/18 – Federación de Servicios de Comi­siones Obreras(CCOO) v Deutsche Bank SAE on 14 May 2019. The request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) submitted by the Audiencia Nacional(the National High Court of Spain)“concerns the interpretation of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(‘the Charter’), Articles 3, 5, 6, 16 and 22 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time(OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) and Article 4(1), Article 11(3), and Article 16(3) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work(OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).” The request was made in the course of“proceedings between the Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras(CCOO) and Deutsche Bank SAE concerning the lack of a system for recording the time worked each day by the workers employed by the latter.” In summary, the outcome of the judgment was that the Working Time Directive“must be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State that, according to the interpretation given to it in national case-law, does not require employers to set up a system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured”. 2 In Finland, correctly maintained working time records have been of crucial importance in jurisprudence when disputes have arisen between employers and employees The Regulation of the Measurement of Working Time in Finland— FES impuls 1