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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on labour inspection and administration, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection), 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) and 150 (labour administration) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), the joint observations of the SAK, of the Finnish Confederation of Professionals (STTK), and of the Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff in Finland (AKAVA), the observations of the Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK) and the observations of the Federation of Finnish Enterprises (SY) on the application of Convention No. 81, communicated with the Government’s reports. The Committee also notes the observations of the SAK on the application of Convention No. 150, communicated with the Government’s report.

A.Labour inspection

Articles 3, 4, 5(a), 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 20 and 21 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 21, 26 and 27 of Convention No. 129. Impact of the reform of the administration services on the organization and effective functioning of the labour inspection services. The Committee notes the 2020 Annual Report of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Administration in Finland (Annual Labour Inspection Report), indicating that the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health is responsible for steering the OSH Divisions of the Regional State Administrative Agencies (labour inspectorate), and that their activities are based on a four-year framework plan. The 2020 Annual Labour Inspection Report also indicates that the labour inspectorate is moving from sector-based inspection activities towards phenomenon-based enforcement, and is currently focusing on issues related to working conditions, fragmented working life and workload. In response to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates in its report that, in order to facilitate the effective use of resources, a division was established to deal with all of the administrative tasks of the labour inspectorate. The Government further indicates that the Ministry of Finance launched a project in the period 2015–19, for the development of customer-centred activities at the Regional State Administrative Agencies, with the objective of increasing self-service and the use of electronic services. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the impact of this project on the functioning of the labour inspection system, and to continue to provide information on any reforms affecting the organization of the labour inspectorate and its operations.

In addition, the Committee previously requested information on any follow-up to the report on the evaluation of the Finnish system of labour inspection by the Senior Labour Inspectors Committee (the SLIC Report), and the introduction of the supervisory software data system, “VERA”. The Committee notes the indication of the Government that the VERA system is now in full use and a key tool for targeting and monitoring enforcement activities in the field of OSH. The Government states that the system has increased the effectiveness and the quality of the labour inspectorate’s activities, and that statistical data on the targeting of inspections and the orders issued to employers are now more detailed than before. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Articles 3(1)(b), 5(a), 9 and 14 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 6(1)(b), 11, 12 and 19 of Convention No. 129. Notification of occupational accidents and diseases. Cooperation between labour inspection services and other public or private services exercising similar functions. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the indication of the Government that, while employers must notify insurance companies of occupational accidents that are neither fatal nor serious, but which have led to sick leave, it is not necessary to provide notice of such accidents to the labour inspectorate. The Government indicates that statistics on occupational accidents are nevertheless quite comprehensive, given that they are produced from insurance activities, and include all accidents for which insurance institutions paid compensation. According to the observations of the SAK, however, there is minimal reporting by physicians of occupational diseases and work-related illnesses to the labour inspectorate, and, consequently, there are few inspections related to cases of occupational disease. The SAK, the STTK and AKAVA, in their observations, further indicate that, according to a study by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, a diagnosed occupational disease seldom leads to changes in working conditions or work practices. In this respect, the Committee notes the indication of the Government regarding the measures taken to ensure cooperation with occupational health services, including training occupational healthcare physicians and nurses by representatives of the labour inspectorate. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that the labour inspectorate is notified of cases of occupational disease, and information regarding the impact of such measures on the labour inspectorate’s efforts to conduct inspections related to occupational disease and to recommend changes in work practices in order to reduce incidents of occupational disease.

Articles 5 and 18 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 12, 13 and 24 of Convention No. 129. Cooperation between labour inspection services and public institutions engaged in similar activities. Collaboration with social partners. Effective enforcement. The Committee notes that, according to the 2020 Annual Labour Inspection Report, tripartite cooperation related to OSH enforcement is carried out with employers’ and workers’ organizations in regional OSH committees and the National Advisory Committee. Nevertheless, the Committee notes the observations of the SAK, that there needs to be greater cooperation between the labour inspectorate and trade unions, and that such cooperation had begun to decrease even before the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee also notes the concerns of the SAK regarding police and prosecution proceedings that do not progress with sufficient dispatch, leading toa danger of exceeding limitation periods. The trade unions and employers’ organizations, in their observations, also express divergent views as regards the effectiveness of penalties for OSH violations, with the SAK, STTK and AKAVA considering that such penalties are too low, while the SY and EK consider that certain corporate fines are very large and that a guidance-based approach to inspections is more effective. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to improve the cooperation arrangements with authorities in charge of prosecutions, to ensure that adequate penalties for violations are effectively enforced. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to assess the adequacy of the penalties for OSH violations over time and to provide further information on measures taken to ensure collaboration between the labour inspectorate and the social partners.

Articles 10, 15(c) and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 14, 20(c) and 21 of Convention No. 129. Coverage of workplaces by labour inspection. Confidentiality of complaints. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the statistics provided by the Government, which show that the number of inspection visits has increased from 25,991 in 2016 to 26,239 in 2018, before falling to 14,596 in 2020 and increasing again to 20,268 in 2021. According to the 2020 Annual Labour Inspection Report, the number of in-person visits to workplaces has also fallen from 25,084 visits in 2017 to 9,176 in 2020. In this respect, the 2020 Annual Labour Inspection Report indicates that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a substantial share of OSH inspections in 2020 were carried out virtually by means of remote inspections, but that investigations of occupational accidents, or other inspections requiring more extensive workplace observation, were carried out on-site. The Committee notes the observations of the SAK stressing that, while diverse and appropriate monitoring measures leading to effective and comprehensive enforcement are welcome, sufficiently frequent on-site inspections are also important. The SAK, STTK and AKAVA also reiterate, in their observations, that less than 10 per cent of all workplaces in Finland are being inspected, and express concerns regarding whether enforcement is carried out in a harmonious and equal manner throughout the country. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the number of labour inspectors has increased from 400 in 2018 to 414 in 2021, and that, according to the observations of the EK, the labour inspection system is of high quality, comprehensive and equipped with sufficient resources. The Committee nevertheless observes that, according to the data of Statistics Finland, there were 368,622 enterprises in Finland in 2020. With respect to the coverage of labour inspection visits, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the measures taken to ensure that the number and frequency of labour inspections is sufficient to ensure the effective discharge of inspection duties and compliance with the respective legal provisions in all workplaces. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to provide statistics on the number of inspections carried out, disaggregated between regular and unannounced inspection visits, remote inspections and in-person visits, as well as planned inspections and inspections undertaken as a result of a complaint.

Articles 20 and 21 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 26 and 27 of Convention No. 129. Annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes with interest that the 2020 Annual Labour Inspection Report contains statistics specific to the agricultural sector, regarding inspection visits, violations and penalties imposed, and occupational accidents and diseases. The Committee also observes that, while statistics of workplaces liable to inspection and the number of workers employed therein appear to be available on the website of Statistics Finland, they are not included in the annual labour inspection reports. The Committee requests the Government to continue to transmit copies of the annual labour inspection reports to the ILO, ensuring that they contain statistics of workplaces liable to inspection and the number of workers employed therein, in accordance with Articles 20 and 21(c) of Convention No. 81 and Articles 26 and 27(c) of Convention No. 129.

Issues specifically concerning labour inspection in agriculture

Article 6(1)(a)–(b) of Convention No. 129. Enforcement and preventive activities in the area of OSH in agriculture. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding labour inspection visits and other activities undertaken in the agricultural sector in the period 2018–21 by the labour inspectorate. According to the Government, 457 of such inspection visits concerned the employment of migrant workers. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that, in order to provide information in languages other than Finnish, the website of the labour inspectorate was translated into Swedish and English, while the guide entitled “As a Foreign Employee in Finland” was translated into fifteen languages. In this regard, the Committee also notes the observations of the SAK under Convention No. 184, taking the view that migrant seasonal workers are a particularly vulnerable group of workers and that resources for inspection in agriculture are inadequate for enforcement. Noting the indication of the Government that the labour inspectorate has moved from a sector-based approach to a phenomenon-based approach for inspection, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the labour inspection activities undertaken in this sector, including inspection visits conducted and measures taken as a result thereof. The Committee also requests the Government to provide further information on how it ensures that labour inspectors supply technical information and advice to employers and workers concerning the most effective means of complying with the legal provisions, especially as regards migrant seasonal workers.

Article 9 of Convention No. 129. Qualification and training of labour inspectors in agriculture. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding a training course which opened for all inspectors since May 2018, on the safety of machinery in agriculture, and a two-day training event conducted in March 2016 for inspectors engaged in the primary sector, which covered different OSH topics. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on training provided to labour inspectors in areas relevant to agriculture, including the number of labour inspectors who completed such training.

B.Labour administration

Articles 1 and 4 of Convention No. 150. Effective operation of a system of labour administration. The Committee notes the indication in the report of the Government that the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment is now headed by two ministers, and has four departments responsible for its main tasks, and three separate units. The Government also indicates that the main responsibility for the preparation of policy and legislation related to labour migration and policy coordination was transferred from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment as of 1 January 2020. The Committee notes that, according to the Annual Labour Inspection Reports, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health retains responsibilities in the field of labour, including on labour inspection and OSH. In the absence of information on this issue, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate how coordination is ensured between the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, to guarantee the effective operation of the labour administration system.

Article 9. Delegation of labour administration activities to regional or local agencies. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding reforms to strengthen the role of local governments in the organization of employment services. In this regard, the Government indicates that pilots will run from 1 March 2021 to 31 December 2024, in which certain tasks of Regional Employment and Economic Development Offices (TE Offices) will be transferred to local governments. In addition, the Government also refers to a reform for 2024 involving the permanent transfer of public employment and economic development services to municipalities. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the outcomes of these reforms. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate how the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment will have the means to ascertain whether local governments and municipalities operate in accordance with national laws and regulations and adhere to the objectives assigned to them.

Article 10(2). Resources of the labour administration system. The Committee notes that in its observations, the SAK expresses concerns regarding the level of resources in municipalities seeking to manage employment services in major urban areas on a trial basis. The SAK indicates that, according to reports, the working conditions of the staff were perceived as highly stressful, placing extreme demands on their ability to manage the workload. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the staff of the labour administration system have the material means and financial resources necessary for the effective performance of their duties.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) on the application of Convention No. 81, communicated with the Government’s report.

Article 3(1) and (2) of Convention No. 81 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Convention No. 129. Cooperation with the police in the control of immigration law. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the indication in the report of the Government that the labour inspectorate still carries out joint inspections with the police and the Finnish Border Guard in industries such as agriculture, restaurants, and construction, as it has been established that there are workers without the necessary work permits in these sectors. According to the Government, cooperation between various authorities is considered an effective method to tackle the informal economy and allows the authorities to make effective use of their different powers. The Government indicates that, based on the feedback received, the cooperation between authorities does not cause fear in the workplace and instead, increases trust in the maintenance of a fair and harmonious labour market, encouraging employers to comply with their statutory obligations. The Government further states that labour inspection related to migrant workers aims to ensure that workers have safe working conditions and terms of employment that are compliant with legislation, and that the labour inspectorate provides guidance to workers on minimum terms of employment. The Government nevertheless indicates that that all matters related to unpaid wages and social benefits are handled by the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY Centre), and the labour inspectorate does not have any data regarding the wages or social security benefits paid to migrant labourers. Furthermore, the Committee observes that the Government also refers to the expectation of potential opposition and aggressive behaviour at certain inspections of this type, making the presence of the police and the Finnish Border Guard useful to ensure the safety of labour inspectors. The Committee refers the Government to its 2006 General Survey on labour inspection, paragraph 78, and underlines that the objective of labour inspection can only be met if workers are convinced that the primary task of the inspectorate is to enforce legal provisions relating to conditions of work and protection of workers. The Committee also notes the observations of the SAK, indicating that the current resources for occupational safety and health (OSH) enforcement are inadequate, and that addressing that enforcement in relation to labour abuses in the shadow economy should not be achieved at the expense of OSH enforcement. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that labour inspectors’ participation in joint inspections does not interfere with the effective discharge of their primary duties under Article 3(1) of Convention No. 81 and Article 6(1) of Convention No. 129. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the measures taken to ensure that labour inspectors’ participation in joint inspections does not prejudice in any way the authority and impartiality which are necessary to inspectors in their relations with employers and workers. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to provide further detailed information on the procedure for enforcing employers’ obligations arising from the statutory rights of undocumented migrant workers for the period of their effective employment relationship, including information on the labour inspectorate’s advisory role in directing such workers to the ELY Centre and to social security authorities.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified governance Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Convention No. 81 and Convention No. 129 in a single comment.

The Committee notes the joint observations of the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) and the Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff in Finland (AKAVA), attached to the Government’s report.

Articles 3, 4, 5(a), 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 20 and 21 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 21, 26 and 27 of Convention No. 129. Impact of the reform of the administration services on the organization and effective functioning of the labour inspection services. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the reform of the administration services, including the labour inspection services, initiated in 2010–11. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the SAK, the AKAVA and the Finnish Confederation of Professionals (STTK) previously expressed doubts as to the organization of occupational safety and health (OSH) services as part of regional state administrations, emphasizing in particular their concerns as to the impartiality of the labour inspection staff. In this regard, the Committee also notes the observations made by the AKAVA attached to the Government’s report provided in 2015 under the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), in which the trade union expresses its concerns that the abolition of OSH inspectorates and the merging of the OSH authority with the state regional administration have made accessing the OSH authority more difficult for “private customers”.

Concerning the impact of the abovementioned reform, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that: (i) the reform has not affected the resources allocated to labour inspection, nor the number of labour inspectors or the number of labour inspections; (ii) the relocation of offices into the same buildings as the regional state administration agencies has decreased rent and made it easier to make use of shared office services; (iii) Parliament has published a document stating, among other things, that the independence of inspections continues to be secured, but that there appeared to be a negative attitude towards the effects of the reform among labour inspectorate staff. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Ministry of Finance established a working group to identify the reasons behind this dissatisfaction and to find solutions. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference to the report on the evaluation of the Finnish system of labour inspection by the Senior Labour Inspectors Committee (SLIC), attached to the Government’s report (hereinafter: “the SLIC report”). While the Government emphasizes the findings in the report that the new organizational structure is an efficient system that is in line with the principles of the SLIC, the Committee notes that the SAK and the AKAVA, in their joint observations, emphasize that, while the report points to positive developments, it also highlights areas for development. The Committee requests that the Government provide information on any steps taken as a result of the findings of the working group established at the Ministry of Finance, in so far as they have an impact on the organization and functioning of the labour inspection services.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the new supervisory software data system, “VERA”, had been partly implemented and should increase the efficiency of inspections through improved time management. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the full introduction of the system has been slightly delayed, but that once in full use, data should be available on the results concerning the implementation of their system. The Committee also notes the observations made by the SAK and the AKAVA concerning certain weaknesses in the VERA system, as observed by the SLIC evaluation group, including a lack of uniform operating methods and a time-consuming procedure.

In this regard, the Committee notes that the evaluation team stated that the VERA system is a very comprehensive system for reporting, record keeping and information collection and recommended that, to improve the efficiency in the labour inspectors work, the VERA system should also contain information related to previous inspections. The Committee requests that the Government continue to provide information on the operation, functioning and results of the new supervisory data system “VERA”, as well as provide any follow-up given to the recommendations made in the SLIC report.

Articles 3(1)(b), 9 and 14 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 6(1)(b), 11 and 19 of Convention No. 129. Notification of occupational accidents and diseases. The Committee previously noted that the SAK, the AKAVA and the STTK expressed concern at the failure to report suspected cases of occupational accidents and diseases, as well as doubts with regard to the reliability of relevant statistics. On the other hand, the Government indicated that the reporting mechanism worked reasonably well in practice, and that awareness-raising measures had been undertaken for its improvement.

In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government, in reply to the Committee’s previous request, describes the system for the recording and notification of serious and fatal industrial accidents (reporting obligation of employers) and cases of occupational disease (reporting obligations of medical doctors). However, the Committee also notes that the Government does not describe the procedure for the notification of industrial accidents (which are neither serious nor fatal). The Committee further notes the indication of the Government that awareness-raising measures among employers were undertaken on their reporting obligations and that an updated report form on occupational diseases was communicated to medical doctors. Concerning the raising of awareness about typical cases of occupational diseases in the agricultural sector, the Government also indicates that, during inspection visits in agricultural workplaces, information is provided to employers and workers concerning the most common occupational diseases, such as respiratory allergies, dermatopathies, noise traumata and stress injuries. The Committee requests that the Government describe the procedure for the notification of industrial accidents (that are neither serious nor fatal), and specify the obligations of employers in suspected cases of occupational disease. It also requests that the Government continue to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to improve the system of notifying and recording occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease.

Article 5(a) of Convention No. 81 and Article 12 of Convention No. 129. Cooperation between the labour inspection services and other public or private services exercising similar functions. The Committee notes that the SAK and the AKAVA refer to the findings in the SLIC report concerning the insufficient cooperation between the labour inspection services and occupational health-care providers. The trade unions recall that, according to the findings in this report, the effective cooperation between these services would contribute to a higher degree of compliance with OSH regulation. The Committee requests that the Government provide information on the measures taken to promote cooperation between the labour inspection services and the occupational health-care providers.

Articles 10, 15(c) and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 14, 20(c) and 21 of Convention No. 129. Coverage of workplaces by labour inspection and confidentiality of complaints. The Committee previously noted the Government’s confirmation, in relation to relevant observations made by the SAK, the AKAVA and the STTK, that less than 10 per cent of all workplaces were inspected every year and that some inspections were conducted in writing without an inspection of the workplace. It noted the Government’s indication that, while the reasons for the decrease had not been ascertained, inspections following complaints had increased by about 500 in 2012.

In this regard, the Committee notes that, according to the findings of the SLIC report: (i) although there are still few inspections per year, there appears to be a positive trend towards an increasing number of labour inspections (the key aim from 2012 to 2015 had been to increase the number of inspections without compromising their quality); (ii) the balance between announced and unannounced inspections is a concern to both social partners as announced inspections are primarily undertaken and unannounced inspections are the exception; (iii) OSH inspections in micro-enterprises (which employ a large part of the workforce), are rarely undertaken. The Committee also notes from the information provided by the Government in its report under Convention No. 155, that the number of labour inspections and the number of workplaces covered by inspections has increased from 2010 to 2013. The Committee also notes the recommendations made in the report, that: (i) a sufficient number of regular and unannounced inspections (that is to say not in response to a complaint) be undertaken to ensure that when inspections are conducted as a result of a complaint, the confidentiality of the complaint can be ensured; and (ii) the effective monitoring of the compliance with legal provisions including in micro-enterprises be ensured. The Committee requests that the Government ensure that, in accordance with Articles 10 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and 14 and 21 of Convention No. 129, the number and frequency of labour inspections is sufficient to ensure the effective discharge of inspection duties and compliance with the respective legal provisions in all workplaces, including in micro-enterprises. In this regard, it requests that the Government provide information on the follow-up given to the recommendations made in the SLIC report.

Issues specifically concerning labour inspection in agriculture

Article 6(1)(a)–(b) of Convention No. 129. Enforcement and preventive activities in the area of OSH in agriculture. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its report that action plans for the five OSH divisions of the regional state administration agencies included “a primary production monitoring campaign for 2012–13 in agriculture and forestry”, which focused on work in the grey economy and was aimed at ensuring healthy and safe working conditions and methods, including the safety of machines and equipment and the supervision of OSH services in enterprises. In this regard, the Committee understands from the information provided by the Government that about 4.4 per cent of all workplace inspections in 2013 and 2014 concerned the agricultural sector, but that it is not possible to provide information on the abovementioned campaign, as coordination between the OSH divisions of the regional state administration agencies only began in 2014. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government in response to its previous request on the preventive activities of the labour inspectorate (advisory activities during inspections) and on other actors in the agricultural sector, such as the Finnish Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. The Committee once again requests that the Government provide information on the results of any inspection campaigns undertaken in the agricultural sector (including information on the violations detected, the legal provisions concerned, proceedings initiated, remedies applied and sanctions imposed), and the impact of this campaign on the conditions of work and the protection of workers in agriculture, including information on the number of cases in which workers found to be in an irregular situation have been granted their due rights.

Article 9 of Convention No. 129. Qualification and training of labour inspectors in agriculture. The Committee previously requested that the Government provide information on how it is ensured that labour inspectors possess the required qualifications and technical knowledge to perform their duties adequately in the agricultural sector, particularly in light of the information that the two specialist inspectors in agriculture in each of the five OSH services in the regional administrative agencies will not be replaced by sector-specific inspectors once they retire. In this regard, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the training provided in 2013 to 16 labour inspectors on the main risks and hazards in agriculture (including occupational accidents and diseases in the agricultural sector, physical, biological and chemical exposure to agents, phytosanitary work, personal protective equipment and machine safety). The Committee requests that the Government continue to provide information on the training courses provided to labour inspectors in areas particularly relevant to agriculture.

Articles 26 and 27 of Convention No. 129. Publication and communication of an annual report containing information on the activities of the labour inspection services in the agricultural sector. The Committee notes the reiterated indication of the Government that it is not possible to include sector-specific statistics in the annual reports of the OSH administration. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure publication of statistics on the work of the inspection services in agriculture, whether as a separate part or as a part of the annual report of the OSH administration, as required by Article 26, containing the information as required by items (a)–(g) of Article 27.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified governance Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Convention No. 81 and Convention No. 129 in a single comment.

Article 3(1) and (2) of Convention No. 81 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Convention No. 129. Cooperation with the police in the control of immigration law. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that inspections of migrant workers were mainly concerned with checking work permits and ensuring that employers complied with their obligations concerning minimum working conditions. It also noted the Government’s indication that labour inspectors report the unauthorized employment of migrant workers to the police, and that inspections targeted at undeclared work were also conducted jointly with the police.

In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that in 2013–14, the labour inspectorate monitored migrant workers’ authorization to work and observance of their minimum terms of employment in selected industries. In 2013, 3,400 labour inspections (of a total number of 22,340 labour inspections in that year) related to migrant workers, and in 2014, 2,505 labour inspections (of a total number of 24,145 labour inspections in that year) related to migrant workers. Some of the inspections were joint inspections together with other authorities, including the police, tax authorities, and border guards. The Government adds that an inspection project was carried out in the restaurant and construction industry, with the cooperation of the police and border guards. The Committee would like to stress, once again, that the involvement of inspection staff in joint operations with the police is not conducive to the relationship of trust that it is essential to enlisting the cooperation of employers and workers. Workers in a vulnerable situation may not be willing to cooperate with the labour inspection services if they fear negative consequences as a result of inspection activities, such as being fined, losing their job or being expelled from the country. The Committee therefore considers that the participation of the labour inspection staff into these joint operations is incompatible with Article 3(2) of Convention No. 81 and Article 6(3) of Convention No. 129. The Committee further notes that, from 2010 to 2013, the labour inspectorate reported 178 cases concerning the unauthorized use of foreign labour to the police. It further notes the Government’s indication that while the labour inspectorate monitors compliance with the statutory obligations of employers with regard to the minimum rights of migrant workers (for example, concerning the payment of wages), it is not responsible for the collection of outstanding wages or social security benefits.

The Committee therefore urges that the Government take the necessary measures to ensure that the labour inspection staff are no longer involved in joint operations with the police and to provide information on the steps taken to separate the functions of the police from the activities of the labour inspectorate.

Noting the Government’s indication that the labour inspectorate is not responsible for assisting workers in obtaining their due rights relating to outstanding wages and social security benefits, the Committee requests that the Government provide information on the procedure for enforcing employers’ obligations arising from the statutory rights of undocumented migrant workers for the period of their effective employment relationship, including in cases where the unauthorized employment of migrant workers is reported to the police and where such workers are expelled from the country. The Committee also requests that the Government provide information on the number of cases in which migrant nationals in an irregular situation have been granted their entitlements resulting from their past employment relationship (wages, compensation for overtime, social security benefits, etc.).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

With reference to its observation, the Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

The Committee notes the comments made 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), in a joint statement attached to the Government’s report, which was received on 29 August 2013.

Articles 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 20 and 21 of the Convention. Organization and effective functioning of the labour inspection system under the supervision and control of a central authority. Following up on its previous comments concerning the administrative reform on the labour inspection system in Finland, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a report on the implementation of the regional state administrative reform (including the delegation to the regional state administrations of the occupational safety and health (OSH) services) was submitted to Parliament in February 2013, which is expected to provide a statement by the end of 2013.

The Committee notes that the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK refer to their previous comments, where they expressed doubts as to the organization of OSH services as part of regional state administrations, re-emphasizing in particular their concerns as to the impartiality of the labour inspection staff. The Committee notes that the Government, on the other hand, reiterates that the administrative reform has not affected the resources available for OSH inspection duties, nor the status, functions, independence and impartiality required for their exercise, even if premises are shared in some cities with other administrative officials.

The Committee further notes the explanations provided by the Government and the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK on the number of labour inspectors and the number of inspection visits, and it also notes the statistical data in a table attached to the Government’s report. It notes the Government’s indications that inspections are conducted on the basis of a tripartite four-year framework agreement, in addition to the inspections that are carried out following a complaint. The Committee notes that the Government confirms the previous statements of the above trade unions that less than 10 per cent of all workplaces are inspected every year and that some inspections are conducted in writing without inspections of the workplace. According to the Government, while the reasons for the decrease in the number of inspections following complaints, deplored by the SAK, AKAVA and STTK in its previous comments, have not yet been ascertained, this might be due to difficulties of locating the appropriate authorities for labour inspection in the context of the administrative reforms; however, in 2012, inspections following complaints have increased by about 500. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that labour inspectors are currently being trained in the use of the new supervisory data system “Vera”, which has been partly implemented according to the information in the Government’s report (the reporting module is still under preparation) and should increase efficiency of inspections through an improved time management. It further notes that the measures proposed by the tripartite Resources II Working Group of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to enhance the effectiveness of OSH enforcement and the more efficient use of resources have not yet been fully implemented and that work in this respect will continue until 2014. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the impact of the reform of the labour inspection system on the application of the provisions of the Convention, including on the number of labour inspectors, routine inspections and inspections following complaints, the office facilities available to the OSH divisions and the financial resources allocated to them, etc. Please also provide information on the current conditions of service of inspectors, especially their salary scales by comparison to the remuneration of public officers with similar functions such as tax inspectors.

Please also continue to provide information on the outcome of discussions in Parliament and relevant findings of the assessment of the impact of the reform on the effective functioning of the OSH divisions and labour inspection, as well as extracts from any relevant documents, if possible in one of the working languages of the ILO.

The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the measures taken to enhance the effectiveness and quality of OSH enforcement, including more detailed information on the operation, functioning and results of the new supervisory data system “Vera”.

Articles 9 and 14. Notification of industrial accidents and cases of occupational diseases. Following up on its previous comments in this regard, the Committee notes that, in a joint statement attached to the Government’s report, the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK express again concern at the failure to report suspected cases of work-related diseases and cases of work-related accidents despite the legal obligations in this regard. The Government, on the other hand, refers once again to the legal obligations to report cases of industrial accidents and cases of occupational diseases, and indicates the authorities responsible for receiving such notifications. It states that the reporting mechanism works reasonably well in practice, while awareness-raising measures have been undertaken (at workplaces and among medical doctors, etc.) for its improvement.

However, the Committee observes that the Government, despite the above information, has once again not described in detail the structure and functioning of the system for the recording and notification of employment accidents and occupational diseases to the OSH inspection services. In this regard, the Committee also understands that the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK indicate that relevant statistics might not be reliable. The Committee finally notes the Government’s indications, in response to previous comments by the above trade unions on the absence of physicians associated with the OSH services for the conduct of investigations, that the wage levels of labour inspectors might be too low to attract medical doctors, but that labour inspectors are trained and have the required expertise in this regard. The Committee asks the Government to make any comments it considers appropriate on the observations of the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK. It also, once again, asks the Government to describe in further detail the structure and functioning of the system for the recording and notification of employment accidents and cases of occupational diseases, and to communicate any applicable texts.

Please continue to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to improve the system of notifying and recording employment accidents and cases of occupational disease, including measures taken to sensitize workers and employers or their organizations (for example, through awareness-raising campaigns, the distribution of brochures or the organization of training sessions).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Article 3(2) of the Convention. Additional functions entrusted to labour inspectors. The Committee notes that the number of inspectors specializing in the supervision of foreign workers has increased from nine to 14, and that inspections focus on whether foreign nationals have the required work permit and compliance with minimum working conditions in certain sectors. The Committee had previously noted that labour inspectors reported the unauthorized employment of foreign workers to the police, and that joint inspections targeted at undeclared work were also carried out jointly with the police, tax authorities and the Finnish Pension Fund. Referring to its previous direct request and paragraphs 75–78 of the 2006 General Survey on labour inspection, the Committee asks the Government to indicate the proportion of inspections devoted to verifying the legality of employment in relation to the total number of inspections carried out.

In this respect, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide disaggregated data on undeclared work and specify the number of cases involving foreign workers in an irregular situation. It also asks the Government to supply other relevant information, such as statistics on the violations found following inspections and the legal provisions to which they relate, the legal proceedings instituted and the nature of the penalties imposed. Please also provide information on any joint controls undertaken with the police and the tax authorities, and their results.

Since the Government has not replied to a request for information in this regard, the Committee once again asks the Government to indicate the manner in which the labour inspection services ensure the enforcement of employers’ obligations with regard to the statutory rights of undocumented foreign workers for the period of their effective employment relationship, including in cases where the unauthorized employment of foreign workers is reported to the police and where such workers are expelled from the country. Please explain in detail the applicable procedures and indicate the relevant provisions in national law, where possible, in one of the working languages of the ILO. Please also provide information on the number of cases in which foreign nationals in an irregular situation have been granted their rights resulting from their past employment relationship (wages, social security benefits, etc.).

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes 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), received by the Office on 31 August 2012 and attached to the Government’s report.

Articles 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 16, 20 and 21 of the Convention. Organization and effective functioning of the labour inspection system under the supervision and control of a central authority. In response to its previous request for information on the impact of the administrative reform on the labour inspection system in Finland, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a report on the implementation of the regional state administrative reform (including the delegation to the regional state administrations of the occupational safety and health (OSH) services) is being prepared and will be submitted to Parliament by the end of 2012. It also notes that according to the joint comments made by the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK, the expediency of delegating OSH functions to the regional state administrations in the framework of this reform will have to be assessed, once the report has been finalized.

However, the Committee notes that the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK, with reference to their previous comments on this matter, once again express doubts concerning the organization of OSH services as part of regional state administrations. The Committee understands that these doubts, among others, relate to: (i) the lack of financial autonomy of the OSH divisions in the regional state administrations and the lack of office facilities and services for OSH inspection services; (ii) the introduction of a complicated system which is even more costly than the former one; (iii) the lack of qualified personnel to staff the small divisions in the regional state administrations; and (iv) poor accessibility to OSH authorities because of the centralization of the telephone services of OSH divisions and the difficulty of locating the appropriate authorities responsible for OSH enforcement, which has resulted in a decrease in complaints and inquiries. The Committee also noted in its last direct request that the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK commented on: (v) the regional administration not having a clear understanding of the methods for engaging in cooperation; and (vi) the regional administrations continuously receiving requests concerning duties which lay outside the scope of OSH enforcement.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications in this regard that: (i) after the completion of the reform, the five OSH divisions in the regional state administrations will be provided with office premises and other ordinary office services, and resources for OSH inspection duties will be allocated directly to the OSH divisions, with the directors enjoying autonomy to use these resources for inspections; (ii) administrative costs have not increased as a result of the reform, and will decrease after the transitional period, and a more accurate analysis of the allocation of resources based on the workers covered by the five OSH services is currently being prepared; (iii) the training of inspectors is aimed at enhancing special expertise, even in minor areas of responsibility; (iv) the problems in contacting the OSH divisions (uncertainty about the whereabouts of administrative units, accessibility via telephone) have been addressed by the Administrative IT Centre for the five regional state administrations, and attention will be paid to this in the future; however, a customer service found that 80 per cent of those trying to contact regional state administrative agencies were able to find the required contact information; (v) cooperation and exchange of information has not deteriorated, but has been enhanced through coordination groups, networks and common projects; and (vi) the independence of the OSH divisions is guaranteed by the Act on regional state administration, which requires that divisions must be organized so as to ensure independence and impartiality in OSH supervision duties, and not allocated other duties which may jeopardize the proper conduct or independence of officials carrying out OSH inspections.

Functional, operational and financial organization of the OSH services in the regional state administrations. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the reform has not affected the quality of supervision, as the regional state administrative agencies (which are part of the structure of the Ministry of Finance) only provide office services for the five OSH divisions, including premises, human resources and financial management, and that the OSH divisions are organized so as to ensure their independence in the conduct of their inspection duties. Financial resources for the discharge of labour inspection duties are allocated to the OSH divisions by the Department of OSH of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. They are distributed on the basis of performance agreements determining targets for a four-year period through framework agreements for each of the five OSH divisions. The divisions make their own decisions on the recruitment and training of inspectors. However, the Ministry has defined its recruitment principles and has created a training system for initial and subsequent training of inspectors. The Ministry also prepares instructions for supervision that define how it is to be implemented.

Measures taken to enhance the effectiveness of OSH enforcement until 2015 (follow-up to proposals of the Resources II Working Group). The Government indicates that the efficiency of supervision has been enhanced through the improved quality and methods of supervision, as recommended by the Working Group on the Resources of OSH Administration (Resources II) of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. The Resources II Working Group proposed a strategy to enhance the effectiveness of OSH enforcement under which any reductions in the resources of OSH administrations in the framework of the Government`s productivity plan, which aims to reduce OSH administration by 25 posts, must be carried out in an appropriate manner. According to the Government, a minimum of 60 per cent of all administrative resources are devoted to inspections, and the number of inspections increased from 12,600 in 2010 to 20,900 in 2011. Furthermore, coordination groups in key areas have been established to improve the exchange of information between OSH divisions and standardize supervision activities. The new supervisory data system “Vera”, which is currently being implemented, will contain a wide range of information on supervision and the efficiency of supervision. In this regard, the Committee notes that the plan to reduce personnel has not yet been implemented and that the decrease in the number of inspectors from 358 in 2010 to 301 was due to retirement and personnel turnover.

According to the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK, although the content and quality of workplace inspections have been developed in line with the recommendations of the Resources II Working Group, the number of inspections in relation to the total number of workplaces still remains below 10 per cent, which means that most workplaces are not inspected for years, if ever, and OSH inspectors spend only 13 per cent of their working time conducting workplace inspections. The trade unions also regret that data provided in annual reports is not sufficiently clear to determine which actions are defined as inspections, and how many workplace inspections are conducted. They note that surveys sent to workplaces may have been counted as inspections in certain cases. The trade unions also deplore the decrease in the number of inspections following complaints. In this regard, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in a table in its report, according to which the number of inspection visits following complaints fell from 3400 in 2008 to 1400 in 2011. The trade unions reiterate that a comprehensive reporting system for OSH enforcement authorities should in their view be established as required by Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to Decree No. 1383 of 2010 on the OSH divisions at the regional state administrations which was amended with regard to the duties assigned to the regional state administration of southern Finland.

The Committee asks the Government to make any comments it considers appropriate on the observations of the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK.

It asks the Government to continue providing information on the impact of the reform of the labour inspection system on the application of the provisions of the Convention, including on the number of labour inspectors, routine inspections and inspections following complaints, the office facilities available to the OSH divisions and the financial resources allocated to them, etc. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would also report on any further structural adjustments made in the framework of the administrative reform and to provide explanations on the duties assigned to the five OSH divisions, as well as to communicate any relevant texts in this regard.

Please also provide information on the findings of the assessment of the impact of the reform on the effective functioning of the OSH divisions and labour inspection, as well as extracts from the report that is to be submitted to Parliament, referred to above.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on the measures taken to enhance the effectiveness and quality of OSH enforcement, including more detailed information on the operation, functioning and results of the new supervisory data system “Vera”.

Noting that the Government has not provided information on this subject, the Committee once again requests it to specify the status and conditions of service of inspectors in the new structure, and to provide a copy of any applicable text.

Article 3. Duties of labour inspectors in the area of undeclared labour. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the control of the grey economy by OSH authorities is mainly related to controlling the minimum working conditions of workers, including in the area of OSH. According to the Government, it has been observed that enterprises that fail to pay taxes and social security contributions also underpay their employees and fail to comply with OSH regulations. The Committee understands that inspections targeted at workplaces within the grey economy are carried out jointly with the police, tax authorities and the Finnish Pension Centre.

The Committee further notes that the OSH services employ nine inspectors specializing in the supervision of foreign workers and that between 2009 and 2011, ten to 15 cases of the unauthorized employment of foreign workers were reported to the police annually. Referring to its previous direct request and paragraphs 75–78 of the 2006 General Survey on labour inspection, the Committee asks the Government to specify the mandate of the nine inspectors specializing in the supervision of foreign workers, as well as the nature and scope of the controls carried out by them, including information on any joint controls undertaken with the police and the tax authorities, and their results.

Please indicate the number of inspections targeted at undeclared work including, where applicable, foreign workers in an illegal situation, as well as the number of infractions detected, the legal provisions to which they relate, and the nature of sanctions imposed.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate the manner in which the labour inspection services ensures the enforcement of employers’ obligations with regard to the statutory rights of foreign workers for the period of their effective employment relationship, including in cases where the unauthorized employment of foreign workers is reported to the police, and where foreign workers are liable to be expelled from the country.

Article 12)(1)(a). Free entry of labour inspectors into workplaces. The Committee notes the comments made by the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK, that labour inspectors were denied entry to Finland’s largest worksite, the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant, when they intended to perform an inspection. The Committee asks the Government to reply to these comments, and to indicate how it is ensured in practice that labour inspectors have the right to enter workplaces freely without restriction, as required by Article 12(1) (a) of the Convention.

Article 14. Notification of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease. The Committee notes that the SAK expresses concern at the failure of some enterprises to report cases of occupational disease, and the difficulties faced by labour inspectors in carrying out preventive activities in sectors with a high incidence of occupational disease if such cases are not comprehensively reported to the OSH services. In this regard, the Committee notes the SAK’s indication that, according to the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, an occupational disease rarely results in changes at the enterprise level in relation to the conditions and procedures which have resulted in the incidence of the occupational disease.

In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to the obligation of employers to report industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease to the OSH authorities, and to the procedure for the investigation of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease. However, it observes that the Government does not describe in detail the structure and functioning of the system for the recording and notification of employment accidents and occupational disease to the OSH inspection services, as requested. The Committee however notes the indication in the Government’s report under the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129) that all cases of occupational disease are entered into the National Register of Occupational Accidents and Diseases (TPSR) and the information provided by the Government under this Convention, that the classification of cases of occupational disease has been revised.

The Committee notes the communication by the Government of the guide entitled “Investigation of work accidents and cases of occupational disease: Inspectors’ manual for the harmonization and development of labour inspections”, which the Committee will examine as soon as a translation is available in one of the ILO’s working languages. It also notes that the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK deplore the absence of physicians associated with the OSH services for the conduct of investigations.

With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee once again asks the Government to describe in detail the structure and functioning of the system for the recording and notification of employment accidents and cases of occupational disease pursuant to the reform, including the responsible authorities to receive such notification within the reformed system, and to communicate any applicable texts.

Where applicable, please also provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to improve the system of notifying and recording employment accidents and cases of occupational disease, including measures taken to sensitize workers and employers or their organizations (e.g. through awareness-raising campaigns, the distribution of brochures or the organization of training sessions).

Finally, the Committee asks the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged to increase the number of occupational physicians, as well as to indicate how the OSH divisions makes use of the information on industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease as a basis in performing their preventive duties.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2013.]

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

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.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the Government’s report received in October 2008 containing replies to its previous comments, in particular on the points raised by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) and the Confederation of Unions for Professionals and Managerial Staff in Finland (AKAVA), as well as a copy of Act No. 1233/2006 on the contractor’s obligations and liability when work is contracted out.

The Committee also notes the new comments made by the above organizations and the Finnish Confederation of Professionals (STTK), which were included in the Government’s report with its reply.

Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention. Matching the number of labour inspectors to the scope and complexity of their duties. In its previous report, the Government indicated, in reply to the comments of the SAK and AKAVA on the stagnation of the number of inspectors and the decreasing coverage of the labour inspectorate in certain sectors of activity, that the amalgamation of occupational health and safety districts had been conducted satisfactorily and that the new units were fully operational. The Government further provides figures showing the substantial increase of labour inspection activities in 2007 and draws attention to the new performance agreements (framework agreements) signed with occupational safety and health inspectorates for 2008–11, according to which the number of officially mandated inspections should be further significantly increased. The Committee also notes that on 16 July 2008 the Rsurssi II working group, set up by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health with a view to improving the efficiency of occupational safety and health oversight and developing operating approaches for OSH inspectorates, should submit a proposal on the allocation of health and safety administration resources. Nevertheless, the SAK, STTK and AKAVA fear that the Government’s productivity programme and the reform project for regional state administration, which will run until 2015, will compromise the OSH inspectorate framework agreement for 2008–11, under which a tripartite agreement was concluded on the development of inspectorate operations in such a manner that resources would be allocated to address key problems in the workplace and inspections would increase by 50 per cent by 2012. The above organizations emphasize that, under the Council of State developmental decision, approximately 100 posts would be eliminated from OSH inspectorates, which would not only compromise the quality of OSH, but would also fail to meet the requirements of the Convention. Noting that the Government did not supply the information requested in its previous observation in this regard, the Committee asks it once again to indicate the number, content and results of labour inspections in the various categories of workplaces liable to inspection, including in commerce, services and the construction industry. It would also be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of Decree No. 1035 of 2003.

It requests the Government to indicate the proposal made by the Rsurssi II working group with regard the allocation of health and safety administration resources and the measures taken in this respect.

Articles 14 and 21(f) and (g). Improvement of the system for the reporting of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease. The Committee notes with interest the detailed information on the mechanisms, involving a number of public bodies and institutions, the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations and the Finnish Association of Occupational Health Physicians (STLY), established under the Department of the Advisory Board on Occupational Health Care to ensure the proper functioning of the occupational disease diagnostics system and, in the event that an occupational disease is suspected, to ensure that the patients concerned are given the proper medical attention, regardless of the sector, occupation or location. This information seems to match in quite large measure the concern expressed by the SAK and AKAVA as to the need to promote the prevention and diagnosis of work-related illnesses and occupational diseases. The organizations nevertheless still observe that statistics released by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health show an increase in the number of occupational diseases during the reporting year, and deplore that occupational safety and health inspectorates do not maintain physicians or experts who would possess the necessary medical expertise to prevent occupational diseases and work-related illnesses. The organizations also refer to studies conducted by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, according to which occupational diseases have increased and under-diagnosis become more common, whereas the Confederation of Finnish Industries considers that the health-care situation of workers is satisfactory, that Finland has the world’s largest per capita centre for occupational health care which not only provides nationwide training of occupational health-care staff, but also studies all controversial cases of suspected occupational diseases. The Government indicates in this regard that the purpose of the “Prevention Programme for Work-related Illnesses and Occupational Diseases: Action and Project Plan” is to provide explanations for regional differences in diagnosis, and that the directive on the identification of work-related accidents and occupational diseases by the inspectorate has been amended with a view to improving and standardizing examinations. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the directive, as amended, and information on the findings of the prevention programme referred to above and the action taken in this respect.

Articles 20 and 21. Annual report on the work of the safety and health services. According to the Government, annual reports and joint statements prepared by the Ministry concerning inspectorates were made available on the Occupational Safety and Health Inspectorate web site (www.tyosuojelu.fi). This information is proposed under Article 19 of the Convention. The Government also indicates that the organizations are not aware the existence of reports prepared in compliance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would take the necessary measures to ensure that an annual report containing the information set out in Article 21 and elaborated in accordance with the guidance provided in Paragraph 9 of the Labour Inspection Recommendation, 1947 (No. 81), is published and communicated in the very near future. It hopes that the Government will not fail to keep the ILO informed of any progress made in this respect or any difficulty encountered.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report for the period ending 31 May 2006, which contains information in reply to its previous comments, and to the issues raised by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) and the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland (AKAVA), and also information on the practical functioning of the labour inspection system. It also notes the new observations made by the SAK and AKAVA which are incorporated in the Government’s report.

1. Legislative developments. The Committee notes the adoption and the content of Act No. 44/2006 on the Supervision of Occupational Safety and Health which came into force on 1 February 2006, repealing Act No. 131 of 16 February 1973, and also of Act No. 701 of 11 August 2006 on Occupational Safety and Health (shared work places), supplementing Act No. 738/2002 on Occupational Safety and Health and Act No. 44/2006, which contain provisions on cooperation between different employers in shared workplaces and their responsibilities. The Committee notes with interest that these new laws clarify and reinforce the powers of the labour inspection authorities and the procedures for collaboration between employers and workers to ensure the application of all provisions relating directly or indirectly to ensuring health and safety at work.

2. Article 8 of the Convention. Proportion of women inspectors. The Committee notes with interest that fresh recruitment within the occupational safety and health administration increased the proportion of women inspectors from 29 per cent in 2004 to 42.1 per cent in 2005, to the satisfaction of the SAK, which wished to have an inspectorate which was representative of the various components of the workforce in the different sectors of the economy. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether women inspectors perform specific tasks connected with the presence of women in the workforce in workplaces liable to inspection.

3. Articles 10 and 16. Matching the number of labour inspectors to the scope and complexity of their duties. According to the Government, the SAK and AKAVA are concerned at the stagnation in the numbers of inspectors, given the growing complexity of inspection duties and the increasing number of areas to be inspected. The abovementioned organizations estimate that the coverage of the inspectorate in certain sectors of activity has decreased to 10 per cent. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the amalgamation of occupational health and safety districts has been conducted satisfactorily and that the new units are fully operational. While considering that the new inspection tasks are more complex, since they involve an evaluation of both legal and sociological aspects, the Government nevertheless indicates that the number of inspections increased slightly in 2005 after decreasing for several years and that the controls currently aim more specifically at evaluating occupational risks and the appropriate measures for applying health and safety legislation. The Committee hopes that with its next report the Government will send a copy, if possible in English, of Decree No. 1035 of 2003 on combining occupational health and safety districts and that it will also be able to supply information on the number, content and results of labour inspections in the various categories of workplaces liable to inspection, including in commerce, services and the construction industry.

4. Article 9. Collaboration of duly qualified experts and technicians. The Government refers in its report to the doubts expressed by the SAK and AKAVA regarding psychologists or doctors within the occupational safety and health administration. As regards the collaboration of experts in general within the occupational safety and health administration, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that there is at least one employee in each district possessing sufficient expertise and basic training in chemical substances. While indicating that it is not in a position to give information on the regional distribution of psychologists in service, it states that the occupational safety and health districts are autonomous entities which are entitled to make use of external experts or recruit them, as needed. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply further information on the scope of the powers of the occupational safety and health authority regarding the recruitment of duly qualified experts and technicians, on the status and powers of the persons recruited, on procedures for making use of external experts, and on the resources at the authority’s disposal to ensure that the experts uphold the principle of professional secrecy and confidentiality, imposed on labour inspectors by Article 15(b) and (c), with respect to sources of complaints.

5. Articles 14 and 21(f) and (g). Reporting of cases of occupational disease. The Committee notes with interest that, according to the SAK and AKAVA, the difficulties connected with establishing statistics on cases of occupational disease have been resolved since 2004. However, the abovementioned organizations consider that the identification of symptoms remains problematic, that there are substantial regional differences in this respect and that investigations arising from the cases of disease are rare and unreliable. The detailed information supplied by the Government on the mechanism for reporting and recording cases of occupational disease demonstrate a significant development in the relevant procedures but provide no answer to the concern expressed by the trade unions regarding diagnosing difficulties and regional differences in this area. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures taken to resolve these difficulties, as provided for particularly by Article 4(b) of the Protocol of 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), via collaboration with insurance institutions, medical practitioners and other bodies directly concerned.

6. Articles 20 and 21. Annual report on the work of the occupational safety and health services. In its previous report, the Government indicated that the occupational safety and health services draw up annual activity reports. However, no annual report of a general nature on inspection activities has been received at the ILO since the report covering 2000. The SAK stated in 2004 that it had no knowledge of the report required by Articles 20 and 21 even being published. The same comment has been repeated by the SAK and AKAVA. While noting with interest the follow-up report on occupational safety and health strategy published by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in 2004, which provides useful information on the functioning of the labour inspection system over a number of years, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would ensure that an annual report on the matters covered by Article 21 is once again published and sent to the Office according to the procedure and deadlines laid down by Article 20.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s report replying to its previous comments and to the comments made by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK). It also notes SAK’s further observations attached to the Government’s report.

1. Review of the legislation. The Committee notes with interest the legislative amendments enacted to improve working conditions, including the obligation for employers to conduct obligatory risk assessments and to eliminate risks at the workplace, arrange occupational health care for employees, train occupational safety and health professionals and experts and to draw up occupational health-care plans (the Occupational Health Care Act, which came into force on 1 January 2002, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (No. 738/2002), which came into force on 1 January 2003). It also notes with interest the creation of a committee in May 2003 by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to consider the Act on the supervision of occupational safety and health and specifically to draft a proposal for changes in the Act on the supervision of occupational safety and health and appeals in occupational safety and health matters. This committee was required, among other matters, to examine the role of occupational safety and health delegates, as defined in collective agreements in general and in civil service collective agreements. Noting that the work of this committee ended in June 2004, and that the amendments that it recommended have already been taken into account, such as the adoption of a provision prescribing the obligation of employers to train an occupational safety and health delegate, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on any further legislative changes and supply copies of the relevant texts.

2. Articles 1, 4 and 5 of the Convention. Restructuring of labour inspections and administrative improvements. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s intention to give effect to the proposals of the tripartite working group to improve the skills of labour inspectors, supervision methods, the choice of targets and to facilitate the monitoring of the activities of labour inspectors. According to the Government, occupational safety and health inspectorates have already been geographically restructured and their number has been reduced to eight by Decree No. 1035/2003, which came effect at the beginning of 2004, without transfer of personnel. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of Decree No. 1035/2003 detailed information on the and legal provisions adopted, the organizational measures taken and the results achieved.

3. Articles 5(a), 7, 10 and 11 of the Convention. Staff of the labour inspectorate and cooperation with other government bodies. According to SAK, the resources devoted to occupational safety and health inspection are inadequate and should be increased to meet the needs of the enforcement of the new legislation. The Government indicates in this respect that the skills of labour inspectors have been upgraded and adapted to the new legislation and the new problems in working life. It adds that, although the human resources have remained the same, the financial resources have been increased in recent years and have been allocated to selected areas, such as psychosocial phenomena, which has made it possible to improve the prevention of occupational accidents and diseases.

In response to the alleged lack of resources for the extension of the scope and duties of labour inspection, and particularly, the control of the employment of foreign workers, the Government indicates that labour inspectors cooperate with a new police unit set up in 2004. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide further details on the legal and practical arrangements made to ensure such cooperation.

4. Article 9. Collaboration of technical experts and specialists. The Committee notes that the Government has not fully replied to SAK’s comments on the shortage of medical expertise and specialists in chemistry and occupational psychology in the occupational safety and health inspectorates. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the geographical distribution of inspectors specialized in these areas.

5. Articles 10, 13, 16 and 17. Number, scope and frequency of inspections and the measures adopted. SAK emphasizes that few inspections are carried out in the service sector, in commerce and trade. The Committee hopes that inspections of small enterprises and the construction sector will be intensified, as will enforcement of the Working Hours Act, and particularly, with regard to emergency work, which has been increasing in volume.

Noting that in 2002, 23,393 inspections were carried out, compared with 30,028 in 1999, 27,936 in 2000 and 24,242 in 2001, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the reasons for this continuing decrease and provide figures on these inspections by objective, sector and size of establishment. It also requests the Government to indicate the number and the type of measures taken in relation to the nature of the infringements identified.

6.  Articles 13, 14 and 21. Notification of employment injuries and cases of occupational diseases. Noting SAK’s allegation that interventions by labour inspectors are inadequate and the procedures inappropriate for the notification of cases of occupational diseases and other work-related diseases, which are insufficiently diagnosed, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide full information on the effect given to Article 14 in law and practice. It also requests the Government to ensure that data on occupational accidents and cases of occupational diseases are included in the annual report  under points (g) and (f) of Article 21, and, if possible, to ensure that the report is prepared in the manner described in Part IV of the Labour Inspection Recommendation, 1947 (No. 81).

7. Article 8. Women inspectors to deal with specific issues. According to SAK, the number of women labour inspectors remains insufficient and does not correspond to the numbers of working women. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the percentage of women inspectors has been increasing continuously and account for 29.3 per cent of the staff with women representing the majority of newly recruited inspectors. The Committee emphasized paragraph 217 of its General Survey on labour inspection that the principle of maintaining an adequate presence of women in the labour inspection staff is more than ever necessary with the current growth of women’s participation in the labour force. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information on trends in the percentage of women in the inspection services.

8. Articles 20 and 21. Annual reports on the activities of the labour inspection services. Noting that, according to SAK, annual reports on the activities of the labour inspectorate do not appear to be published, the Committee notes that no annual report has been sent to the ILO. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that an annual report is soon published and communicated to the ILO, as prescribed by Articles 20 and 21.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the information supplied in reply to its previous comments. It also notes the observations made by the SAK (Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions) and incorporated by the Government into its report. According to the SAK, the resources and staff numbers of the inspection services responsible for safety at work have decreased over the past ten years while their functions have expanded and the problems inherent in the world of work have multiplied. The SAK draws attention to the fact that the duties of the inspection services have expanded in particular because of the adoption of new legislation such as the Data Protection Act and the Occupational Health Care Act, as well as due to the new challenges and hazards linked with changes in the world of work such as the increase in the number of enterprises, drug abuse and violence. The SAK therefore considers that the resources of the inspection service are no longer adequate in industry and the service sectors either in regard to supervision of safety at work or in regard to checking of contractual employment terms and conditions. Stressing the rarity of inspections in these two fields, the SAK demands, first, an increase in the financial and human resources of the inspection services responsible for safety at work and, secondly, a greater number and better quality of inspections, while advocating that mental well-being at work and violence-related problems should be taken more into account.

The SAK considers that monitoring the terms and conditions of foreigners’ employment contracts is a particular challenge and that the supervisory powers of inspection officials should be enhanced in this respect. According to the SAK, finance for development and organization of such supervision should be an integral part of the operating costs of the administration responsible for health and safety at work.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would give its views on each of the points raised by the SAK and communicate information on any measures taken in relation to the proposals made.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that regional distribution of the resources of inspection services responsible for safety and health at work is under review and it is planned to transfer officials based in the east and north of the country to regions in the south when vacancies occur. It also notes that under a global agreement for 2001-02 on income policy, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has established a tripartite working group for the development of resources of the inspection services responsible for occupational health and safety. The Government is requested to communicate information on the conclusions of the working group which should complete its work in November 2001, and also of any measure taken as a result.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report, the information provided to its previous requests, as well as the annual report for 1997 of the occupational safety and health administration. It also notes the observations included in the Government's report by the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers (TT), the Employers' Confederation of Service Industries (LTK) and the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK).

Articles 5, 10 and 16. Collaboration in respect of inspection; number of labour inspectors; frequency of inspection visits. The Committee notes the Government's indication that apart from the exception of the 1997 inspection of the driving times and rest periods in road transport, no exact quantitative targets have been set, attention principally being focused on the quality of the activities of the labour inspection. The number of inspections is, however, being monitored, and feedback submitted to the occupational health and safety inspectorates, if necessary. The Committee notes the comments by SAK that the quality and quantity of labour inspections have to be guaranteed, given the growing number of small-scale workplaces. The SAC also emphasizes the necessity of increasing inspection in the metal and building trades, and in commerce. As concerns the chemical sector, the legislation is not sufficiently known and action programmes for occupational safety complying with the Labour Protection Act are still unusual; cooperation between the trade unions and the labour inspectorate is however progressing.

The Committee also notes the indication by TT and LTK that accident frequency has remained stable despite the economic recovery. The working method based on consultation established by the administration may have contributed to this trend.

The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to provide information on quantitative and qualitative developments of the labour inspection.

Article 8. Men and women inspectors. The Committee notes the distribution of different functions in the labour inspectorate between women and men. Noting that out of 11 managers none is a woman, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on any progress made by women in occupying managerial positions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes a very detailed Government's report covering the period up to 31 May 1997. It also notes the observations included in the Government's report by the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers (TT), the Employers' Confederation of Service Industries (LTK), the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) and the Confederation of Unions of Academic Professionals in Finland (AKAVA). The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the following points:

Article 3, subparagraph 1(a), of the Convention. Please indicate whether all matters listed in Article 3, subparagraph 1(a), of the Convention, particularly provisions related to the employment of children and young persons, are covered by the scope of authority of the Occupational Safety Inspectorates.

Article 5. The Committee notes the indication in the report that on 1 April 1997 the occupational safety and health administration was transferred from the Ministry of Labour to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health for the purpose of collecting matters concerning occupational health and safety under the same Ministry. The Committee further notes the indication that certain occupational safety issues, for instance, issues concerning product safety, are still dealt with by other ministries and the institutions under their control, but the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has good connections and networks with these ministries. The Committee also notes the Government's indication that the Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health has been an important forum for cooperation. The Committee asks the Government to provide further particulars as concerns the organization of the cooperation between the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and other ministries and the institutions dealing with occupational safety matters.

Article 8. Please indicate the current percentage of women appointed to the inspection staff to each of the levels of the labour inspection.

Article 16. The Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that the number of staff in the Occupational Safety Inspectorates fell by 4 per cent between 1993 and 1996 due to savings in public administration, but that in spite of diminishing resources, there has been no marked change in the number of inspections. The Committee notes the comments by SAK that resources in the Occupational Safety Inspectorates have been inadequate which affected the number of inspections. It also notes the statement by AKAVA that the number of inspections cannot be reduced without impairing the level of occupational safety. On the other hand, TT and PT in their joint statement consider that, as regards the effectiveness of workplace inspections, it is more important to focus attention on the quality than the number of inspections. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the specific arrangements made or envisaged in order to ensure the efficient operation of the system of labour inspection (including the sufficiency of the number of inspection visits) despite the reduction of resources allocated to the Occupational Safety Inspectorates. Noting also the comments by SAK that the number of inspections in the commercial sector is not satisfactory in relation to the number of inspectors, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on this statement.

Articles 20 and 21. The Committee notes the indication in the report that because of the administrative changes, the occupational safety and health administration has not issued a separate annual report since 1993, when the National Board of Labour Protection was abolished and its duties were transferred to the Occupational Safety and Health Division at the Ministry of Labour. The Committee further notes the indication that separate annual reports are to be drafted again, starting with 1996. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to transmit a copy of such report together with its next report under the Convention.

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

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report. It also notes the observations included in the Government's report by the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers (TT), the Employers' Confederation of Service Industries (LTK) as well as by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland (AKAVA) and the Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees (STTK).

Administrative reform. The Committee notes that the administrative reform covering the labour protection and inspection services has continued during the reporting period. Most of the functions previously carried out by the former National Board of Labour Protection have been transferred to the new Occupational Safety and Health Division in the Ministry of Labour as well as to the offices of the Occupational Safety Inspectorates. Discretionary powers formerly exercised by the central administration have been entrusted to the Occupational Safety Inspectorates in conformity with the principles of management by result, i.e. setting of performance targets through negotiations between the Ministry of Labour and the Occupational Safety Inspectorates, use of available resources for the realization of the performance targets followed by performance control and evaluation. According to the Government's report the most representative labour market organizations were on many occasions given an opportunity to be heard when the abolition of the National Board of Labour Protection was being prepared (Article 5(b) of the Convention).

The Committee also notes the information that the Government has commissioned in August 1995 a civil servant to examine the administrative situation of labour protection matters including their possible transfer to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, taking into account a broad definition of workers' protection, possible changes in working life, official economic viewpoints, structural changes otherwise planned in state administration as well as international trends and developments. The Committee hopes that at an appropriate juncture during this exercise the Government will involve the collaboration of employers and workers or their organizations in accordance with the requirement of Article 5(b), and in light of the comments made by AKAVA in this respect.

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest that the need for inspection in the service sector was nowadays increasingly recognized, contrary to earlier indications from the Government that inspection in this sector was justifiably less frequent as it was considered not particularly dangerous.

Article 7. Please provide more particulars regarding training of the inspection staff in light of the observation made by AKAVA and taking into account the requirements of paragraph 3 of this Article of the Convention.

Articles 10, 11 and 16. The Committee notes that SAK, AKAVA and STTK consider that the resources of the labour protection authorities have been reduced and that this has contributed to the fall in the number of inspections of workplaces to a point where any further decrease of such visits would result in the deterioration of safety at work. Please provide indications in this regard taking into account the requirements of these Articles of the Convention that the inspectorate should be sufficiently staffed and adequately provided with the means required for securing the effective discharge of its duties to inspect workplaces as often and as thoroughly as is necessary.

Article 13. The Committee notes that SAK has made the observation that there should be a follow-up of inspection visits that have revealed defects in order to ensure that these defects are remedied and thus bring down the number of occupational accidents through an active and efficient labour protection administration. Both SAK and AKAVA also consider that the supervision of safety at work has been hindered by the fact that matters relating to safety of workplaces are administratively carried out in different ministries. Please provide indications in this respect.

Articles 20 and 21. The Committee notes from the Government's report that the 1993 annual labour inspection report has not been published mainly due to the administrative reform. It hopes, as the Government expects, the 1994 annual report will be published and communicated to the Office and that it will include all information as required by these Articles of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that with regard to the frequency of inspection visits the Government is placing more emphasis on development and investigations than on the traditional form of action of inspection visits to workplaces. It also notes the Government's statement that the reduction in inspection activities is due to cuts in the resources of the Occupational Safety Inspectorates, as well as the need for inspection visits to particularly demanding workplaces, which reduces the number of visits in general. It further notes the statement that it is not only the frequency but also the quality of the inspection visits that have a bearing on the number of accidents and occupational diseases.

The Committee notes the further observation made by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) that the decrease in the number of safety inspections will be reflected in the number of accidents and occupational diseases. It also notes that, while both the Government and SAK consider inspection of workplaces in the service sector to be relatively few, the Government thinks this is reasonable as these undertakings are not specially dangerous, whilst SAK is of the view that the need for inspection in this sector is rising. The Committee further notes that according to SAK occupational safety supervision activities have been adversely affected by the prolonged organizational reforms of the occupational safety administration, and observance of the tripartite principle during the reform period was sporadic. The Committee would be grateful if the next report will provide particulars on the practical application of the organizational reforms and hopes that the Government will bear in mind the requirements of Article 5(b) of the Convention.

Articles 20 and 21. The Committee notes that annual reports on the activities of the inspection services have not been received. It hopes in future such reports will be transmitted as required by these Articles of the Convention.

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

Further to its previous observation, the Committee has noted the comment of the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), that increased official supervision of workplaces could reduce the number of accidents and occupational illnesses; and that of the Confederation of Salaried Employees (TVK), that there are few labour inspections conducted in the clerical and managerial sector and insufficient labour inspectors familiar with this sector. The Government states that inspections are being better targeted, prepared and followed up and are not any less efficient. It refers to continuing administrative reform. The Committee trusts the next report will provide details.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

With reference to its previous observation the Committee notes from the Government's report that municipal labour protection inspection was placed under central Government and the labour protection administration was transferred from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to the Ministry of Labour. As a result the personnel of the labour protection districts increased which should intensify the supervision and increase the frequency of inspection visits in the sectors most susceptible to accidents.

The Committee also noted the comments of the Finnish Employers' Confederation (STK) and the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) concerning the labour protection supervision. It requests the Government to provide with its next reports detailed information in this respect.