Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Finland (Ratification: 1951)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee takes note of the observations from the Federation of Finnish Enterprises (SY), as well as general observations from the Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK) that were included in the Government’s report. The Committee also notes the observations on the Convention made by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), the Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees (STTK) as well as the SY, and the EK, which were transmitted with the Government’s report on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee further notes the observations made by the SAK and the STTK on collective bargaining, which were transmitted with the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (no 154). The issues raised by these different observations are being addressed in the present comment.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference. While the SAK’s concerns regarding alleged acts of discrimination against shop stewards and alleged actions to break strikes are being treated under, respectively, the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135) and the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee takes note here of the observations from the SAK regarding alleged acts of anti-union discrimination against workers. The SAK argues that examples of anti-union discriminations in Finland include lockouts applied to unionized workers only. The SAK also observes that the SY (i) advised employers to reimburse their employees’ membership fee for non-unionized unemployment funds, and (ii) encouraged non-unionized employers to cease paying for their employees’ trade union membership fee. According to the SAK, in practice, employers only reimbursed the unemployment fund membership fee of the non-unionized workers. The Committee also takes note of the response provided by the SY, according to which, under Finnish law, (i) trade unions and unemployment funds must be kept separate, (ii) employers are free to decide which benefits they provide to employees, and (iii) non-unionized employers are not required to pay trade union membership fees for their employees. Moreover, according to the SY, the SAK’s observations are irrelevant as they do not relate to the implementation of the ILO Conventions. In view of the opposite views expressed by the social partners regarding alleged acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Extension of collective agreements. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to comment on the opposite views expressed by the social partners with respect to (i) the general applicability of collective agreements and (ii) the SY’s comments that the alleged impossibility for non-unionized employers to deviate from such collective agreements through the conclusion of workplace-level agreements is contrary to the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that a non-unionized employer, who is bound by a generally applicable nation-wide collective agreement, may conclude a local agreement to the extent that it does not contain weaker terms than the nation-wide agreement, unless the nation-wide agreement or the law expressly allows it. The Government adds that the Finnish Constitutional Law Committee held that the Finnish system in that regard is compatible with the principle of negative freedom of association, as enshrined in the Finnish constitution. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government. Highlighting the provisions of the Collective Agreements Recommendation, 1951 (No. 91) in this respect, the Committee recalls that it considers that the extension of collective agreements is not contrary to the principle of voluntary collective bargaining and that it is not a violation of the Convention (see General Survey 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights a work, paragraph 245).

Collective bargaining levels. The Committee notes the observations from the SAK and the STTK, according to which employers, led by organizations like the EK, have taken steps to undermine the established system of collective bargaining at the national level. The SAK and the STTK observe that employers, in particular in the forestry and technological sectors, withheld from negotiations at national level, preferring negotiations at company level, thereby threatening the workers’ rights. The Committee also notes of the EK’s response, according to which, while collective bargaining shifted from the national level to the sectoral level, collective agreements still maintain the same coverage within the EK’s member federations. The Committee further takes note of the SY’s observations according to which freedom of association does not require employers to negotiate with trade unions. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that, in 2020, the Finnish Forest Industries Federation withdrew from national collective bargaining, allowing terms of employment to be negotiated at the company level. The Government adds that, in 2021, the Technology Industries of Finland split into two associations, with the Federation of Technology Industries of Finland withdrawing from national collective bargaining and transferring the responsibility to a new employers’ association, the Federation of Technology Industry Employers of Finland. The Government reports that the coverage of collective agreements in Finland only decreased slightly from 2014, with 89 percent of employees being covered by such agreements. The Committee recalls that collective bargaining must be voluntary and that the public authorities are under the obligation to ensure its promotion. The Committee also recalls the need to ensure that collective bargaining is possible at all levels, including both at the national level and at the enterprise level. Accordingly, legislation that unilaterally imposes a level of bargaining or makes it compulsory for bargaining to take place at a specific level raises problems of compatibility with the Convention. The Committee further recalls that, in countries where collective bargaining takes place at several levels, parties to negotiations should seek to ensure that there is coordination among these levels (see General Survey 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights a work, paragraphs 200, 222–223). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to promote voluntary collective bargaining at all levels, including at the national level and at the enterprise level. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate how coordination among these levels is ensured.

Legislative developments. The Committee recalls that, according to article 7 of the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), ratified by Finland, measures taken by public authorities to encourage and promote the development of collective bargaining shall be the subject of prior consultation and, whenever possible, agreement between public authorities and employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee therefore expresses the hope that the views of the social partners, regarding the upcoming reforms under Finnish labour regulations, including those expressed by the SAK regarding the right to collective bargaining, will be duly addressed through tripartite social dialogue. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in that respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report which includes observations made by the Federation of Finnish Enterprises, the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) and the Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees (STTK). The Committee notes that: (i) these observations refer to the general applicability of national or sectoral collective agreements; and (ii) the Federation of Finnish Enterprises alleges that the impossibility for employers who are not members of an employers’ association to deviate from such collective agreements through the conclusion of workplace-level agreements is contrary to the Convention. Taking note of the opposite views expressed by the social partners in this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report including the information provided in response to comments made by the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland (AKAVA).

The Committee notes of the comments made by the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland (AKAVA), according to which, employers do not accept collective agreements for senior salaried and professional personnel in most industrial sectors and do not recognise the status of shop steward for anyone representing this category. The Committee notes moreover that according to AKAVA, in the services sector in particular, employers do not recognise this personnel category and do not accept its participation in for example, joint management-worker negotiations on termination of employment.

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Government’s report according to which the relationship between the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers (TT) and the Delegation of Professional and Managerial Employees (YTN) which represents senior salaried and professional employees, is governed by two agreements covering most of the sectors of TT’s member federations, namely, the basic TT-YTN agreement, which is by nature a recommendation, and the TT-YTN cooperation agreement, which is a collective agreement. The Committee also notes that according to the Government some of the TT member sectors have sectoral collective agreements concerning senior salaried and professional employees. Furthermore, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that the two above-mentioned basic agreements specify the position and functions of liaison officers who serve as representatives of senior salaried and professional employees and that the latter are entitled to elect a shop steward, if they are bound by the collective agreement, as well as a representative from among themselves under the Employment Contracts Act. Finally, the Committee notes that according to the Government, the joint instructions in the general agreement between the Employers’ Confederations of Service Industries in Finland and YTN stress that senior salaried employees exempt from the collective agreements comprise a personnel group of their own, which is entitled to elect a shop steward or representative as referred to in the Act on Cooperation within Undertakings.

The Committee takes note of this information. With regard to the services sector, the Committee requests the Government to give examples of collective agreements in force in this sector.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the comments of the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland (AKAVA), which were summarized in the Government’s regular report on Convention No. 87. The Committee notes that these comments relate to collective bargaining rather than freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on AKAVA’s comments in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report as well as the observations of the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals (AKAVA) and the Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees (STTK) transmitted by the Government in its report.

1. The Committee had requested the Government to send its comments on the observations by SAK and AKAVA according to which: (a) no collective agreement applies to senior salaried staff in the service sector; (b) this staff should be mentioned in the Collective Agreements Act for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee notes the Government's statement with regard to point (a) that there is no legislative impediment to making collective agreements for senior white-collar personnel in the service sector. According to the Government the issue here is the unwillingness of the relevant employer and employee organizations to conclude a collective agreement.

With regard to point (b) the Government states that according to section 1 of the Collective Agreements Act, a collective agreement means an agreement which one or several employers or a registered association of employers concludes with one or several registered associations of employees. The Collective Agreements Act does not demarcate or define employee or employer groups. Thus, the Act covers all employee groups, including senior white-collar personnel.

The Committee takes due note of this information.

2. The STTK indicates that the existence of "savings agreements" (i.e. local collective agreements for civil servants and other state employees deviating from nationwide collective agreements and whose explicit purpose has been the saving of costs) has led to a situation where the workers' organizations and their members have resorted to litigation and industrial action to defend their work conditions and collective agreements. The Government notes that workers' organizations have litigated many cases where the members of an organization excluded from the "savings agreements" have been laid off as a cost-saving measure on the grounds that the employer's actions violated, inter alia, the principle of equal treatment. Nevertheless, the courts have held that the lay-off of members of an organization excluded from the "savings agreement" did not violate the principle of equal treatment (e.g. the sentence of the Labour Court 17/1996 and file copy 2106 of the Supreme Administrative Court of 30 September 1998). The Committee also notes the Government's statement that the number of such "savings agreements" has decreased sharply from 337 in 1994 to 23 in 1998.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

1. The Committee notes the information in the Government's report and the observations of the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) and the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals (AKAVA) transmitted by the Government in its report. It also notes the Finnish Local Government Act of 1996.

The AKAVA made comments according to which since 1993 it has been possible to make local agreements deviating from the nationwide collective agreements; this situation would have resulted in arrangements implying notices and lay-offs for those not covered by the agreements. The Committee notes that the Government explains that overall, local collective agreements have been used for the purpose of avoiding redundancies and lay-offs and that the authorities are unaware of any instance where local agreements have resulted in redundancies in breach of the Convention. The Committee understands that the Government will continue to monitor the situation.

In its previous observation, the Committee had mentioned the indication by SAK that, under section 35 of the Municipality Act, the right to political involvement of persons participating in trade union activities was restricted. The Committee notes the text of the provision as well as the explanations by the Government that: (1) the disqualification for the election to a municipal board applies only to the chairman of the local employees' organization and the persons negotiating collective agreements with the local authority; (2) these provisions are designed to prevent a conflict of interest.

2. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government could send its comments on the observations by SAK and AKAVA according to which: (a) no collective agreement applies to senior salaried staff in the service sector; (b) this staff should be mentioned in the Collective Agreements Act for collective bargaining purposes.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report, as well as the observations of the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland (AKAVA) and the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) transmitted by the Government in its report.

The Committee notes the Government's statement that there have been two recent legislative amendments, namely the Act on the Amendment of the Constitution of Finland (969/95) and the Act on the Amendment of the Penal Code (578/95). The Committee notes that the new article 10(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of association, including the right to organize, to everyone. The Committee further notes with interest that section 3, Chapter 47, of the Penal Code as amended, permits an employer or his representative to be punished by a fine or six months' imprisonment for discrimination linked to trade union activities at the time of recruitment or during the employment relationship. Section 4, Chapter 47, protects workers' representatives against anti-union discrimination. Finally, section 5, paragraph 1, imposes fines on employers who prevent employees from exercising their right to join, belong to and be active in a trade union organization, or from appointing for the workplace a shop steward, labour protection delegate or personnel representative at the corporate group level.

In its statement, AKAVA points out that in the municipal sector it has been possible since January 1993 to make local, binding agreements deviating from the nationwide collective agreements. In practice, this has resulted in arrangements not in conformity with the Convention, e.g. notices and lay-offs, for those not covered by the agreement.

The SAK has, in its statement, drawn attention to the provision on eligibility, included in the new section 35 of the Municipality Act. They indicate that this provision restricts the rights to political involvement for persons participating in trade union activities. As a consequence of paragraph 2 of the provision, the chairman of the trade union board or a corresponding organ representing the municipal personnel is not eligible for being a member of the municipal executive board; nor can a chief shop steward or a shop steward involved in negotiation be appointed a member of the municipal executive board. The SAK deems this manner of proceeding to be contrary to the ILO Convention.

The Committee would request the Government to provide a copy of the Municipality Act as amended as well as its comments on the above statements in its next report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes the comments by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), transmitted by the Government in its report for Convention No. 87, to the effect that the new Act on a Register for Merchant Ships in Foreign Trade restricts organization and collective bargaining rights. The Committee notes that the Act provides, among other things, that foreign employee associations may conclude collective agreements to work aboard vessels entered in the merchant ship register, and that such agreements may require that disputes be referred to a court of law in the country of the foreign association. SAK asserts that these provisions restrict the rights of workers to unionize and engage in voluntary collective bargaining in violation of Articles 2, 3, 8 and 10 of Convention No. 87 and of Article 4 of Convention No. 98. SAK indicates that prior to the new Act, collective agreements concerning staff aboard vessels operating under the Finnish flag were always concluded only between Finnish labour market partners.

The Committee notes that the new Act opens competition for contracts to all unions, including foreign unions; there is no evidence that the law favours one union over another or that, other than through greater market competition, the Act disfavours the Finnish unions. Neither Convention No. 87 nor Convention No. 98 can be construed to limit employers' bargaining rights to domestic unions. Indeed, such limited recognition might itself violate the Conventions. As to the new legal provisions for resolving contractual disagreements with foreign associations, the Committee asks the Government to include in its next report details about whether, prior to this Act, Finnish law provided employers or foreign associations the option of court jurisdiction in the association's home country and to provide a description of the prior Finnish jurisdictional framework and whether under the new Act the right to go the Finnish courts is still retained.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee takes note of the report submitted by the Government. It notes with interest that, following its earlier comments, amendments to the Contracts of Employment Act (No. 595/91) came into force on 1 September 1991, whereby the compensation to be paid by an employer for illegal dismissals of shop stewards or of employees having participated in industrial action has been raised to a minimum of three months and a maximum of 24 months' wages.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee takes note of the report submitted by the Government, which includes comments by the Finnish Employers' Confederation (STK), the Employers' Confederation of Services Industries (LTK) and the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK).

Referring to its previous comments relating to the insufficiency of penalties incurred by employers committing acts of anti-union discrimination and to the issue of burden of proof in such cases, the Committee notes from the Government's report that the degree to which it is possible for the parties to prove a certain fact is always taken into account. Therefore, while an employee alleging that he has been dismissed because of his union activities must present general evidence to that effect, under section 37(2) of the Employment Contracts Act, the employer must always prove that there was a substantial reason for the dismissal. The Committee further notes with interest that the Government was to table in Parliament, in the autumn of 1990, a proposal with a view to raising to 24 months' pay the maximum compensation for illegal dismissals, and that, since 1 March 1990, the protection afforded to shop stewards has been improved, including before and after their term as staff representatives.

The Committee notes however that, according to SAK, the penalties which guarantee security against discrimination are insufficient to have a preventive effect in the case of all unionised workers, and that the usefulness of sanctions is hindered by the fact that employees bear the burden of proof.

The Committee requests the Government to communicate, as soon as it is adopted, the text of the Act improving the protection afforded to shop stewards and raising the maximum compensation for illegal dismissals, and to provide in its future reports information on the practical application of the Convention in this regard.

The STK reiterates and the LTK states that the fact that acts of discrimination between employees (such as that which occurs when unionised employees put pressure on non-unionised employees to join trade unions) does not constitute a criminal offence is a serious defect. The Committee recalls in this respect that the protection afforded by Convention No. 98 against acts of anti-union discrimination concerns such acts by employers against workers, and not acts of this kind by trade unions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

Referring to its previous observations relating to the insufficiency of penalties incurred by employers committing acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes with satisfaction the information supplied by the Government in its report, and that, under amendments to the Employment Contracts Act and the Seamen's Act (Acts Nos. 935 and 936 of 4 December 1987), the requirement of equitable treatment of employees has been expressly extended to cover recruitment, and that penal sanctions, including penalties of imprisonment are now provided for such violations. The Committee also notes the increased protection afforded to labour protection delegates through amendments to the Supervision of Labour Protection Act (No. 29/1987), the new provisions regarding the periods of notice in the Employment Contracts Act, and the parallel anti-union discrimination provision applicable to persons employed by local authority employers.

The Committee notes the comments of the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) to the effect that the burden of proof in discrimination cases should shift to the employer, and that the quantum of compensation for illegal dismissals is inadequate. In that respect, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the comments it made in its 1983 General Survey, and in particular to the fact that placing on workers the burden of proving that an act occurred as a result of anti-union discrimination may constitute an insurmountable obstacle to compensation for the prejudice suffered. The Committee requests the Government and the SAK to supply information on the practical application of the Convention in this regard, and in particular on the number of cases where the courts have convicted employers for having dismissed workers unlawfully because of their union activities, and where they have ordered employers to reinstate dismissed workers and to pay them damages.

The Committee further notes the criticism of the Finnish Employers' Confederation (STK) about the absence of penal provisions against acts of discrimination between employees which, according to the STK, occur in practice when unionised employees put pressure on unorganised employees to join trade unions. The Committee points out that the protection afforded by Convention No. 98 against acts of anti-union discrimination concerns such acts by employers against workers, and not acts of this kind by trade unions.