Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 1989, Publicación: 76ª reunión CIT (1989)

Convenio sobre el derecho de sindicación y de negociación colectiva, 1949 (núm. 98) - Finlandia (Ratificación : 1951)

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

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

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