Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 1999, Publicación: 88ª reunión CIT (2000)

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

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

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

The Committee takes due note of this information.

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