CMNT_TITLE

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

Other comments on C081

Observation

Direct Request

DISPLAYINEnglish - French - SpanishAlle anzeigen

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.]