Labour disputes in changing times

Gerty Pau
Judge of Tartu District Court

Ann Meriluht
Judge of Harju District Court

Introduction

Employment relationships reflect both the evolution of society as a whole and the expectations of the new generation entering the labour market. Young people are no longer interested in a steady paycheck and a job that is guaranteed for decades, but expect flexibility in taking on responsibilities, development and more freedom in how they spend their time. As a result, employment relationships are becoming more flexible as well. The legislation has responded to developments in society by adapting the law to these changes. The President of the Republic recently announced an amendment to the Employment Contracts Act that creates the possibility of flexible working arrangements.[1] As changes tend to reflect the expectations of the younger generation, it is rather natural that the older generation, which values stability, resists those changes.[2]

As employment relations are changing, one would expect the same to be true for labour disputes brought before the court. In reality, the nature of labour disputes that the court has received has changed surprisingly little.

It can be observed from the disputes brought before the district courts that they have become more complex in legal terms, with an increasing number of disputes on issues that were less frequent in previous years, such as workplace bullying, unequal treatment, breach of a non-competition agreement, breach of an obligation to keep a trade secret, compensation for material damage caused to the employer, compensation for damage caused to the employee by the employer, and compensation for expenses incurred in the performance of work duties. Claims are presented as alternative claims and are often combined with ancillary claims. In addition, it is increasingly common for a counterclaim to be filed in a labour dispute. Claims brought directly to the district court are more complex in substance and proceedings often take longer than usual. The length of the proceedings is increased by a number of factors, such as the variety of facts in dispute, the large volume of documentary evidence (often the court has to organise the collection of evidence in such disputes), the large number of witnesses (often the employee has no other evidence to support their claims), the large number of procedural documents (the parties want to present their explanations and views on all the issues and evidence raised in the case). As a result of these circumstances, several hearings are necessary in the district court. It is no longer uncommon for digital files in labour disputes to run to 1000-1500 pages.

So what did we agree on then?

In the case of labour disputes in South Estonia, the most difficult thing remains finding out what the parties agreed to. There are still disputes where the employment contract and/or its amendments have been concluded orally. More common are agreements where something is written into the contract, but it is not sufficient. In addition, what is written in the contract does not always match what was verbally agreed. At best, information about certain agreements can be found in the evidence submitted in the proceedings: text messages‑, social media messages, etc. In more complex cases, nothing is written down and the parties’ memories of what happened may be very different.

This was the case in a dispute between a family medical centre and a substitute or general practitioner employed there (Civil case No. 2-23-9521). The employee asked to establish that the parties had concluded an employment contract. In addition, they asked the employer to pay them the wages they had not received, remuneration under Section 35 of the Employment Contracts Act, compensation for shorter notice of termination of the employment contract and redundancy pay. The plaintiff’s total financial claim was 3000 euros. The parties did not dispute the fact that, according to the verbal agreement, the plaintiff was to be a substitute doctor at the family medical centre and (at least according to the initial positions) was to receive 200 euros per day for this. There was also no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff had to work two days a week. All the rest was unfortunately not discussed – whether it was a contract of services or an employment contract; whether the day was 8 hours or could be 4 hours; when to start work and whether the introduction to the job was already a working day; whether the job included only outpatient visits or whether the substitute doctor had to give advice by phone, etc. In the course of the proceedings, it emerged that the parties also did not agree on whether the remuneration should have been calculated as an hourly rate of 25 euros or a daily rate of 200 euros and whether taxes should have been deducted from this amount. The plaintiff also amended their explanations on the calculation of the remuneration during the proceedings. The employment relationship lasted only 5 working days. The employer’s testimony at the hearing is characteristic of the whole dispute: “We didn’t specifically agree on the hours, the expectations were higher than reality.” As the employee was the daughter of a friend of the employer’s representative, both parties felt that everything was clear. The parties presented messages exchanged on Facebook after the problem had arisen as evidence.

In such proceedings, the court[3] can only state that the parties concluded an agreement for the payment of wages.

The second dispute worth addressing is one where the parties had a written contract of employment, but what was agreed on regarding the scope of work and remuneration was valid until the employee took parental leave, after which the contract and the reality of the situation diverged. The matter ended in a dispute in which the employee sought to receive wages and holiday pay, while the employer sought overpaid wages and holiday pay to be returned (civil case No 2-25-9400)[4].

The employee was an accountant who, during their parental leave, started doing the accounts of three companies for the same employer for a fixed fee instead of their main job. When the employee returned to work, the parties failed to clarify what would happen regarding the agreement made during parental leave. And although the employee did not want to work full-time, part-time work was not agreed upon either. The employer simply accepted that the employee would work at a load of 0.6. The problem arose when the employer’s and the employee’s understandings of remuneration did not coincide. The whole procedure is made stranger by the fact that the employer is a company that provides accounting services.

These two disputes characterise a fair share of labour disputes in South Estonia – the parties have agreed on something, but what they have agreed on is not really clear.

The lack of written agreements puts the judge in a difficult position. It is very common for parties to have different memories of what was negotiated when the contract was signed. It also quite often happens that when a party to the proceedings reads the other party’s description of the agreement reached, they have a false memory of a conversation taking place. The longer the proceedings drag on, the more the parties involved can begin to doubt even what was initially claimed to be very certain. So it can happen that the claim “the salary was 200 euros per day” made in the lawsuit becomes “it was probably 25 euros per hour” during the hearing. What was actually agreed upon can no longer be clarified in the courtroom. The judge is not a clairvoyant.

The only reasonable option is for the judge to accept that there is no evidence in the proceedings. Interrogating the parties under oath does not provide a definite knowledge of possible agreements if the parties’ testimonies are diametrically opposed. In the case of a longer employment relationship, judgement can be based on how the remuneration was actually paid or how the working hours were calculated, but not always. In the above example, the employee was an accountant who also calculated their own salary. Keeping records of wages and working hours should be the responsibility of the employer, but this is often not the case. In the absence of evidence, it is up to the judge at the hearing to explain to the parties that the court can, for example, base the calculation of the wages on the average salary paid for this work in Tartu County – provided, of course, that at least the basis for the time calculation (hourly or monthly wage) can be established.

The lack of evidence complicates the proceedings, but the court can use this situation to steer the case towards a compromise. People generally understand that in the absence of a written employment contract or records of work hours, the employer should review their practices. And if an employee starts work without a clear understanding of what their responsibilities are, the employee has also failed to do their duty. Usually there is a solution that seems reasonable, or at least not overly objectionable, to both sides. This is confirmed by the statistics on court proceedings. In 2025, a total of 230 claims arising from employment relationships were filed in all district courts and 84 disputes were settled by compromise. In 2024 the corresponding figures were 249 and 89, and in 2023, 204 and 61. This means that the likelihood of reaching a compromise in labour disputes is very high.

Long-distance drivers’ cases – examples of communication problems

Based on the labour disputes, it can be said that there are many long-distance drivers in both South and North Estonia. Their employment contracts are usually in writing, and they also sign an agreement on material liability. As a general rule (there are exceptions here too), the amount of the salary and the daily allowance for foreign trips are agreed upon in writing. Conflicts between drivers and employers arise in two cases: the parties do not give each other clear enough information about the next trip, or the driver causes some damage to the employer.

In general, the driver receives information about the next trip from a person designated by the employer (e.g. a logistician) by telephone. Confusion arises when the time of the assignment offered to the employee is not suitable or when there is a ‘waiting period’ between two trips. According to the experience of the authors of this article, employers are relatively flexible in such relationships and are willing to change the start time of the assignment or find another driver for that particular trip. For example, in the civil case No 2-24-7103[5], a dispute arose as a result of the fact that, after the employee was not prepared to go on a foreign assignment, it was unclear whether the employment relationship was to be continued or not.

The employee was due to go to on a work trip in Sweden by truck on 7 October 2023. However, the employee informed the employer that they were attending their grandmother’s funeral on 8 October 2023 and could not go on the assignment. The employer changed the booking of the ferry tickets to a later date, but the employee then announced the date of the funeral as 9 October 2023. Despite the employer changing the date of the ferry tickets again, the employee still did not go on the assignment. At first glance, a missed assignment abroad does not seem disastrous in terms of an employment relationship. There is always another trip. However, confusion may arise regarding the work tasks that follow. In this dispute, the employer did not contact the employee again – they did not offer foreign assignments, but did not terminate the employment contract either. As the employer did not pay the salary, the employee terminated the employment contract themselves. Both the employee and the employer approached the labour dispute committee.

Sometimes it is the other way round – the employee does not contact the employer after returning from an assignment and does not terminate the contract. The parties do not usually agree upon what happens if the employee is not contacted by a representative of the employer (logistician etc.). It is not clear to the employee whether they are at home and waiting for the next assignment or whether they should go to the employer’s office or vehicle park and ask for their next assignment. Some clarity for the parties will come on the next payday at the latest – if the employee does not receive their salary or receives only half a month’s pay (based on time spent on the trip), the employee will usually contact the employer. The lack of clear agreements on communication procedures, waiting periods and travel schedules means that the employee stays at home for some time waiting for a call from the employer.

These disputes usually end up in court because the employee wants wages, compensation for termination of contract and holiday pay. It can sometimes be relatively difficult for a judge to understand whether a trip was missed because of the employee or the employer. If all the communication has been via telephone, it is difficult to establish whether the employee refused to go to work or whether the situation is one where the employer simply did not call the employee to work. Exchanging written messages does not always make resolving the matter easier. This way, the parties involved may have different understandings of the employer’s text message “If you can’t come to work, that’s it”. It may not be clear to the employee whether the employer wishes to terminate the contract with this message and whether they wish to terminate the contract unilaterally or by agreement between the parties. In addition, each party tends to interpret the other party’s behaviour as a wish to terminate the contract. For example, if the employer has not offered the employee a new assignment for a week, the employee assumes that the contract has ended. In this case, the only reasonable way for the judge to reach a solution is to explain to the parties at the hearing what the correct way to terminate the employment contract would be, and to try to resolve the situation with a compromise.

Another problem inherent in drivers’ employment relationships is material liability. If an employee has a traffic accident with a vehicle while on a foreign assignment that does not prevent them from continuing their journey, the employee tends not to inform their employer about it immediately. The employer only hears about the accident after the employee has returned from the trip. Employees pass on information if it helps them avoid having to pay for something themselves – for example, employees immediately report a fine received for driving a semi truck on a motorway. As the employer wants the truck to arrive at the right place at the right time, they pay the fine themselves or give the employee money for it.

The circumstances of the following court case are an example of how insufficient communication can lead to disputes over compensation for damages. While carrying out work duties in Finland, the driver of a truck mistakenly loaded more goods into the tanker trailer than was permitted. While on the weighbridge, the truck driver thought there was some kind of error in the weighing result and decided to drive to the unloading anyway. After driving 20 km, the driver realised that the truck was overloaded but decided to continue without informing the employer (although instructions had been given to always inform). Due to the heavy load, the trailer frame broke during unloading, which resulted in the truck having to be written off. As the damage was caused by an overloaded trailer, the existing insurance did not cover the cost of repairing the truck. The employer filed a claim for damages. The employee filed a counterclaim for unpaid wages, unused holiday pay and late payment interest. Both claims were upheld in part (Civil case No 2-23-16520)[6].

In the case of a road traffic accident, a fine paid by the employee, etc., the question of the employer’s claim for damages arises, and it can be assumed that in the case of a road traffic accident, the damages to the trailer truck may be relatively high. In the case of labour disputes in South Estonia, if the relationship between the employer and the employee is decent, the employer will not usually claim damages against the employee. Such a claim is made if an employee brings an action for payment of wages and compensation for termination of the employment contract and the employer wishes to offset these claims procedurally.

Protecting the weaker party

In the administration of justice in civil matters, parties and other persons are equal before the law and the court (section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure). This means that the court treats the employee and the employer equally. However, in substantive law, the employee is seen as the weaker party and labour law has imposed imperative norms to strengthen their position. After years of resolving labour disputes, it is beginning to seem that the employer is sometimes the weaker party. If the employee can do the job at least to a minimum standard, it is difficult to terminate the contract after the probationary period, e.g. if the employee does not fit into the team or if their personal characteristics are not suited to the job at all. Disputes have come before the courts where an employment contract was terminated before the employee started work and the employee went to court to challenge the termination and seek compensation. At the same time, changing jobs has become more commonplace and self-evident. For example, long-distance truck drivers will often find a new job fairly quickly after their previous work relationship ends. It is also not uncommon for the employee to set up a private limited company in competition with the employer, and the question arises whether the employee used, among other things, knowledge and information about clients obtained from the employer. Add to this young people’s expectations and lack of willingness to be tied to a job for decades and you might think that, in reality, the parties to an employment relationship are equal. It can no longer be presumed that the employee is necessarily the weaker party who should be protected by the courts and substantive law.

The fact that the employee is not always the weaker party in the employment relationship is demonstrated by the increase in the number of claims for contractual penalties and/or damages (section 26 of the Employment Contracts Act) filed against employees for breach of a non-compete agreement. In such disputes, non-compete agreements are generally formulated in a concrete and clear manner, taking into account the established case law of the Supreme Court. Proving an employer’s claim can sometimes be difficult because the employer does not have enough evidence and it is not easy to get it. This was the case, for example, in civil case No 2-22-1854. The dispute before the Harju District Court concerned a situation where an employee (sales manager) had set up a company through which they sold a similar product to their employer. The employee had access to important confidential information, including information on the specifics of the products and a database of customers and subcontractors. The employee contested the claim, arguing that there was no breach of non-competition restriction, and that it was not clear what goods they had allegedly sold in breach of the restriction. The court ordered the collection of evidence, but the company owned by the employee did not provide any evidence on the grounds that the employer’s company was a competitor and that the requested information contained trade secrets. The employer therefore had to gather evidence themselves and the claim was eventually partially dismissed by the district court.[7]

In similar disputes, the parties have usually agreed to a contractual penalty of between six and twelve months’ average salary. Unlike the award of damages (subsection 74(2) of the Employment Contracts Act), the court cannot reduce the contractual penalty on its own initiative, but only at the request of the obligated person (employee) (subsection 162(1) of the Law of Obligations Act). In cases where the prerequisites for a claim are met and the employee contests the claim but does not file a claim for reduction of the contractual penalty, the court has no choice but to grant the claim for the amount requested (e.g. Civil case No 2-23-5823[8]). As the court must appear impartial, it is also not possible for the judge to propose to the employee that they request a reduction of the contractual penalty.

Underage workers

Underage workers are recruited mainly for casual work, as support staff during busy periods (Christmas, summer events, etc.), to substitute for permanent employees on holiday, etc. Most of the time, no written contracts are concluded in such employment relationships. Someone’s acquaintance or friend has recommended and shared the employer’s contact details, and then a few messages (which may be made up of nothing more than acronyms) are exchanged, agreeing on a starting date and, for example, an hourly rate of 7 euros. Nobody can provide more information later, let alone say whether it was an open-ended or fixed-term agreement, a full-time or part-time employment contract, and whether an employment contract or some other contract under the law of obligations was concluded.

In addition, it is not clear whether 7 euros per hour is gross or net pay. In the event of a dispute, the employer considers it gross pay. The worker, however, takes a different view, saying that seven euros per hour is the amount they should receive. Unfortunately, minors do not usually think about taxes and do not know how to ask for clarifications or further questions when signing a contract. It is also not at all uncommon for a minor to work long hours and weekend shifts of 11-12 hours without breaks.

There are many 17-year-olds working in this way in Estonia, studying in educational institutions but working, for example, on weekends, school breaks or public holidays. According to Statistics Estonia, the number of working young people aged 15 to 17 was 2100 in 2024.[9] Employers include catering establishments, hotels, shopping centres, etc.

This completely overlooks the fact that the prior consent of a legal representative is required for the conclusion of an employment contract with a minor and that an employer is prohibited from allowing a minor to work without the consent or approval of a legal representative (subsection 8(9) of the Employment Contracts Act). Often, the adult does not explain to the minor what terms and conditions must be agreed upon, or that an employment contract must be concluded in writing. It is therefore important to clarify the above before a legal representative gives consent to a minor to enter into an employment contract.

Compliance with working and rest time is a serious problem for underage workers. On 1 September 2025, a number of restrictions on the working time of minors came into force.[10] As a result of the amendment to the law, children aged 15 or over who are still obliged to attend school may work outside school hours during the academic term for 2 hours on a school day and 8 hours on a non-school day, but not more than 12 hours in total within a seven-day period. During school holidays, they may work 8 hours a day, but not more than 40 hours in total within a seven-day period (subsection 43(4(3)) of the Employment Contracts Act). An agreement that exceeds this time limit is null and void (subsection 43(5) of the Employment Contracts Act), and an overtime agreement concluded with a minor is also null and void (subsection 44(2) of the Employment Contracts Act). A minor employee is entitled to a break of at least 30 minutes during the working day when working more than 4.5 hours. Breaks during the working day are not counted as working time (subsection 47 (3) of the Employment Contracts Act). An agreement according to which an employee who is subject to compulsory education is obliged to work from 20:00 to 06:00 and an employee aged 15-17 who is not subject to compulsory education is obliged to work from 22:00 to 06:00 is null and void (subsection 49 (1), (2) of the Employment Contracts Act). The court disputes give the impression that employers are unaware of, or “forget”, the working time regulations for minors.

Here we give an example of a recent noteworthy employment dispute with a minor (Civil case No 2-23-12587), which was heard in the Harju District Court. The employer (a pizza restaurant) and a 17-year-old employee of compulsory school age had agreed that the employee would start work as a pizza maker at a wage of 6 euros per hour (gross), working according to a schedule. There was no written contract signed between the parties, and no other agreement on terms and conditions was apparent. During the period of work, the employee had to constantly work overtime, as they had to substitute for other employees, on consecutive days. For example, the minor once worked an 11-hour day (11:00 to 22:00) on both a Friday and the following Saturday. When the contract was terminated, the employee learned from the entry in the employment register (TÖR) that the employer believed that a contract under the law of obligations had been concluded between the parties. In the final payment, the employer paid the employee 3.08 euros in wages for May and June, after deducting 300 euros for “skiving”, 10.70 euros for a cancelled order and 676.11 euros for damages caused. At the hearing, the employee claimed unpaid wages, holiday pay and late payment interest; the employer contested the claims. The district court partially upheld the employee’s claim. However, the dispute ended in a compromise in the circuit court.[11]

In light of the case described, the need for a written employment contract must be reiterated and stressed again and again, since without it, employment is extremely precarious and risky. A written contract protects the employee by defining specific work tasks, salary, working hours, workplace, etc. A clear agreement on working time alone is necessary for both parties, as it gives the employee an idea of how much they will be paid each month and the employer will know how much they can employ the employee for. An employer’s unwillingness to sign a written contract should certainly be the first warning sign (it is assumed that the employment contract will be presented to the employee for review before starting work) and it is better not to start work in such a situation, as careless administration can easily lead to disagreements.

The employee must also be able to understand whether the contract is an employment contract or a contract for services under the law of obligations, since the latter does not provide the employee with sufficient protection in matters such as working and rest time, paid leave, minimum wage, notice periods, termination of the contract and various benefits such as health insurance benefits, redundancy pay and unemployment insurance benefits. In a contract under the law of obligations, the service provider is presumed to be able to defend their own interests. A contract under the law of obligations also offers more flexibility but significantly less security. However, it should be borne in mind that even if a contract is described as a contract under the law of obligations but in fact has the characteristics of an employment contract (subordination, fixed working hours and place of work, work equipment, monthly remuneration), it may be a disguised employment relationship and the employee can use a declaratory claim to seek the application of employment contract protections within a labour dispute resolution body.

Termination of employment contract of a pregnant employee

Termination of employment contracts for pregnant employees continue to occur, despite the fact that a pregnant employee is one of the most strongly protected persons in an employment relationship. An employer can only terminate an employment contract in exceptional cases and on very clear grounds. A recent example can be found in the case law of the Harju District Court (Civil case No 2-23-3570). The employee had worked for the employer as a junior researcher since 2014, with an evaluation taking place every three years. The employee informed her employer of her pregnancy and also of the doctor’s recommendation to temporarily ease her working conditions or transfer her to another job or post until the start of her maternity leave. The employer informed the employee that the evaluation committee has proposed to transfer her from her academic post to another position. As no other post was allegedly available to be offered, the employee’s employment contract was terminated with 6 days’ notice by extraordinary termination. The reason given for the termination was that the academic staff member did not pass the evaluation and another post could not be offered. The court awarded the employee compensation in the amount of 12 months’ average salary in accordance with subsection 109(2) of the Employment Contracts Act, as there were no grounds for the extraordinary termination of the employment contract.[12]

Recognition of labour dispute committees

Just as the causes of labour disputes change, so too do the procedures for handling them. The majority of labour disputes are now settled by labour dispute committees. According to the Labour Inspectorate, they received 2411 labour dispute applications in 2024.[13] On the one hand, the high number of applications suggests that employees are becoming more aware of their rights, but on the other hand, the increase in the number of labour disputes reflects the impact of the economic slowdown, as reduced liquidity and employers’ financial difficulties lead to more problems with employees’ pay. Employees are more likely than employers to turn to the labour dispute committee to defend their rights. Disputes are over financial claims, such as claims for unpaid wages, holiday pay and other benefits.

According to the courts information system, 256 claims arising from labour disputes were filed with the court in 2024. This means that thanks to the labour dispute committee, 90% of proceedings are settled out of court. In 2024, the Harju District Court received 155 labour dispute cases, of which 10 had gone through the procedure of the labour dispute committee, and in 2025, it received 185 cases, in which the labour dispute committee had made a decision in 15 cases.

According to the judges, the decisions of the labour dispute committees are well-founded and adequately reasoned. This does not mean that the positions of the labour dispute committee and the court always coincide. However, one of the reasons the court and the committee’s decision may differ is that employers who have ignored the committee’s procedure present their own positions and evidence in the court proceedings. In this case, some of the evidence may lead to a different decision. Despite this, judges consider it highly commendable that labour dispute committees resolve a large number of smaller disputes, thereby reducing the workload of courts. As a rule, the calculations of the labour dispute committee to determine average wages are generally reliable and can be used by the court. This also saves time for the judge who adjudicates the case. Labour dispute committees are the cheapest and quickest way for the state, the employee and the employer to resolve a large part of labour disputes. An application submitted to the labour dispute committee is reviewed within 45 calendar days of receipt (section 38 of the Labour Dispute Resolution Act) and the decision is notified to the parties within 10 working days of the hearing. Courts cannot keep up with this speed of dispute resolution.

Summary

Although the claims and circumstances presented in labour disputes have remained unchanged over time, there has been a noticeable change in the attitude of employees. Employees are more willing than before to change jobs if their current one does not meet their needs.

Employees’ desire for flexible working conditions has increased significantly in recent years. Flexibility means, in particular, the possibility to choose the working time, place or organisation of work in a way that allows for a better work-life balance. Employees value the possibility to work remotely, flexible working hours and performance-based rather than attendance-based work organisation. According to the authors, flexible working arrangements increase employee satisfaction and motivation and help prevent burnout, while for employers it can improve workforce retention and competitiveness.

____________________________

[1] Act amending the Employment Contracts Act and other Acts – RT I, 03.02.2026, 5.
[2] A law allowing flexible working hours would weaken the position of employees. Aktuaalne Kaamera, ERR. – https://jupiter.err.ee/1609909177/paindlikku-tooaega-lubav-seadus-norgendaks-tootajate-positsiooni (01.02.2026).
[3] Tartu District Court decision of 19.03.2024 in Civil case No 2-23-9521. The decision is available in the Riigi Teataja: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtulahendid/fail.html?id=363681935 (18.03.2026).
[4] The case has been appealed and at the time of writing, no court decision has entered into force in this case.
[5] The decision of the Tartu Circuit Court of 28.05.2025 on this case is available on the website of the Riigi Teataja: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtulahendid/fail.html?id=408382543 (18.03.2026).
[6] The case has been appealed and at the time of writing, no court decision has entered into force in this case.
[7] The case has been appealed and at the time of writing, no court decision has entered into force in this case.
[8] The case has been appealed and at the time of writing, no court decision has entered into force in this case.
[9] The data are available on the Statistics Estonia website: https://stat.ee/et/avasta-statistikat/valdkonnad/heaolu/noored (02.02.2026).
[10] Act amending the Republic of Estonia Education Act and other Acts related thereto (Establishment of Compulsory Education) – RT I, 23.12.2024, 1.
[11] Tallinn Circuit Court ruling of 01.12.2025, available in the Riigi Teataja: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtulahendid/fail.html?id=427863668 (19.03.2026).
[12] Decision of Harju District Court of 15.08.2025, available on the website of the Riigi Teataja: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtulahendid/fail.html?id=415888080 (19.03.2026).
[13] Data available on the Labour Inspectorate’s website: https://www.ti.ee/asutus-uudised-ja-kontaktid/kontakt/statistika (03.03.2026).