Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Finland (Ratification: 1950)

The Committee notes the Government’s report which was received at the Office on 6 October 2010, as well as the comments made in a joint statement by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), the Confederation of Unions for Professionals and Managerial Staff in Finland (AKAVA) and the Finnish Confederation of Professionals (STTK), reported by the Government in its report.

Articles 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 16, 20 and 21 of the Convention. Effective functioning of a labour inspection system under the supervision and control of a central authority. The Committee notes that according to the latest comments by SAK, AKAVA and STTK: (i) the functions of occupational safety and health (OSH) enforcement have been delegated to the regional state administrations and this has resulted in an increase, rather than a decrease, in administrative costs of OSH enforcement which has made it impossible to recruit more inspectors; (ii) the regional state administration is not endowed with resources which are commensurate to the numbers of workers to be covered by inspections and does not have comprehensive expertise in all areas of OSH; (iii) the regional administration does not have a clear understanding of methods for disseminating information and engaging in cooperation, for example, among regional state administration agencies; (iv) directors of regional state administration agencies do not have a clear understanding of the independence of OSH enforcement systems; (v) regional administrations continuously receive requests concerning duties which lie outside the scope of OSH enforcement; (vi) experience so far reveals that workers have difficulty locating the appropriate authorities responsible for OSH enforcement as appropriate points of contact have not been established and the telephone contact centre is not user-friendly; (vii) the Government’s productivity programme can have an adverse impact on the resources available for OSH enforcement; (viii) a comprehensive reporting system for OSH enforcement authorities should in their view be established as required by Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention.

The Committee notes from the Government’s report that: (i) the Decree on Occupational Safety and Health Inspectorates No. 1035 of 2003 was repealed on 1 January 2010 by the entry into force of several legislative texts which abolished the OSH inspectorates and transferred their personnel and all pending matters to the new regional state administrative agencies; (ii) as a result, a total of 358 employees were assigned to the tasks previously carried out by the OSH Inspectorates; (iii) the goal of the Government’s productivity programme which was to reduce the regional OSH administration posts by 100, has been revised significantly and, at the moment, a reduction of 25 posts is envisaged; (iv) in addition to their OSH-related functions, new duties are assigned to OSH inspectors, including the control of the “grey economy” and preventing the emergence of two labour markets; (v) the number of inspections carried out in 2008 and 2009, amounted to 20,477 and 19,916 respectively and covered 14,717 and 14,618 workplaces out of a total of approximately 240,000.

The Government also indicates that the Working Group on the Resources of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Resurssi II) published its report in spring 2009 under the title “Productive, Successful and High Quality Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement 2015”. The working group suggested a strategy for enhancing the effectiveness of OSH enforcement, including through cooperation between actors in the field of OSH, as well as measures for guaranteeing sufficiently qualified personnel. While the working group did not define the precise amount of resources needed for the above, it emphasized that effective OSH enforcement by 2015 would require sufficient resources and that possible reductions in the resources of the OSH administrations must be carried out in an appropriate manner, so as to maintain the possibility of effective and successful action. According to the Government, the execution of the working group’s proposals has begun and will continue until 2015.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide the legislative texts introducing the reform of the labour inspection system so that it may examine their content: Act on regional state administrative agencies (896/2009); Act on entry into force of legislative provisions for reforms within regional administration (903/2009); Act on the amendment of the Act on the occupational safety and health administration (900/2010); amendments to the Act on occupational safety and health enforcement and cooperation on occupational safety and health at workplaces (701/2006) and (524/2009); Government Decree on regional state administrative agencies (906/2009); Ministry of Health and Social Affairs Decree on the administrative districts of certain regional state administrative agencies’ occupational safety and health areas of responsibility (930/2009).

With regard to the control of the “grey economy”, the Committee recalls that, according to Article 3(1)(a) and (b), the primary functions of the system should be the supply of technical advice and the enforcement of legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers, including provisions relating to OSH; according to Article 3(2), any additional functions entrusted to labour inspectors should not interfere with the effective discharge of their primary duties nor prejudice in any way the authority and impartiality which are necessary to inspectors in their relations with employers and workers. The Committee emphasizes in this regard that the Convention does not contain any provision suggesting that any worker be excluded from the protection afforded by labour inspection on account of their irregular employment status or irregular residency status (see General Survey of 2006, paragraphs 75–78). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide details on the nature and the results of the controls performed by the OSH administration in the area of the so-called “grey economy”.

Articles 20 and 21. Publication of the annual report. With regard to the preparation and publication of an annual report, the Committee notes with interest that according to the Government, the “areas” responsible for OSH within the regional state administrative agencies, report on the achievement of their objectives to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and prepare an annual report on the previous year’s activities; these annual reports and other data are used as a basis to compile an annual report which is sent to the workers’ organizations and is available on the Internet. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to its general observations of 2007, 2009 and 2010, and the valuable guidance provided in Paragraph 9 of the Labour Inspection Recommendation, 1947 (No. 81), on the manner in which the information provided in annual reports can be presented and analysed. It emphasizes in particular the importance of effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system so that annual reports can reflect statistics of violations and penalties imposed (Paragraph 9(e) of Recommendation No. 81).

The Committee invites the Government to make any comments it considers appropriate with regard to the observations made by the SAK, the AKAVA and the STTK and to specify in particular, how the reform of the labour inspection system has impacted on the application of the provisions of the Convention concerning the structure and functioning of the labour inspection system and the status of labour inspectors.

Recalling that the Resurssi II working group suggested that the resources of the labour inspectorate should be sufficient to ensure effective OSH enforcement by 2015, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the strategy adopted or envisaged for enhancing the effectiveness of OSH enforcement until 2015 as a follow-up to the working group’s proposals.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide an organigramme of the reformed labour inspection system at the levels of both the regional state administrative Agencies and the central authority and specify which authority determines the budget allocated to labour inspection, the priorities of labour inspection, the recruitment of inspectors and training policies, and the inspection methods. It also requests the Government to specify the numbers, status and conditions of service of inspectors in the new structure.

Furthermore, the Committee, taking due note of the information provided in the 2009 annual report, would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide as detailed information as possible on the number, content and results of inspections in the various sectors of economic activity and to specify the proportion of labour inspection activities focused on the “grey economy” in comparison to the activities focused on OSH and other working condition-related matters. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would specify the proportion of inspection visits carried out pursuant to complaints.

Articles 14 and 21(f) and (g). Improvement of the system for the reporting of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease. The Government replies to the concerns previously expressed by SAK and AKAVA with regard to the increase in cases of occupational disease, by noting that, according to the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, the statistics for 2005 are not comparable with information from previous years, because the method of compiling statistics on occupational diseases and suspected cases of occupational disease has been reformed. It also indicates that reports of suspected cases of occupational disease to insurance institutions have been more thorough since the reform of the labour inspection system. While referring to the concern expressed by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health that not all confirmed cases of occupational disease are registered into the databases of insurance institutions, thus making it difficult to distinguish confirmed cases from suspected ones, the Government provides figures showing the distribution by province of occupational diseases and suspected diseases according to disease category in 2007. The Committee notes that the directive on the identification of work-related diseases is a guide for inspectors entitled “The assessment of work-related accidents and occupational diseases: inspectors’ manual for the harmonization and development of labour inspections”. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would describe in detail the structure and functioning of the system for the recording and notification of occupational accidents and cases of disease pursuant to the recent reform, and once again requests the Government to communicate the findings of, and any follow-up to, the Prevention Programme for Work-related Illnesses and Occupational Diseases. It would be grateful if the Government would also provide a copy of the abovementioned guide for inspectors.