CMNT_TITLE

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.