National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation
Employment protection legislation database
DISPLAYINEnglish - French - Spanish
The Committee notes the Government’s report for the period from 1 June 1999 to 31 May 2007, which also contains its reply to the direct request of 1999 and an observation made by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK). The Committee notes the statistical information concerning adjustment of benefits requested under Article 21 of the Convention and provided by the Government in its report on Convention No. 128.
With regard to the application of the Articles of the Convention, the Government states that it has “nothing new to report”. The Committee would like to point out that, even if no legislative changes have occurred in the reporting period, under the report form on the Convention, the Government is requested to supply once every five years updated statistical information on the scope of personal coverage of the Convention, the amounts of the benefits paid for different contingencies and their replacement level in relation to the reference wage of a standard beneficiary. In order to confirm that the quantitative requirements of the Convention are being complied with, the Government is requested to furnish such detailed statistical data for examination by the Committee at its next session in November–December 2009.
Article 8 of the Convention. For many years, the Committee has been pointing out that the list of occupational diseases contained in Decree No. 1347 of 1988 does not mention the following diseases which appear in the list (amended in 1980) included in Schedule 1 to the Convention: (a) broncho-pulmonary diseases caused by hard metal dust (item No. 2); (b) primary epithiliomatous cancer of the skin caused by tar, pitch, bitumen, mineral oil, anthracene, or the compounds, products or residues of these substances (item No. 27). Consequently, it has asked the Government to take measures to ensure that workers exposed to the risk concerned and afflicted with the abovementioned diseases could fully benefit from the presumption of their occupational origin established by the Convention, and to consider the possibility of including these diseases into the list contained in Decree No. 1347.
In reply, the Government states that lung diseases caused by hard metal dust are included in Decree No. 1347. The Committee asks the Government to confirm this statement by supplying a consolidated copy of the Decree including all the amendments made and indicating the relevant provision. As regards primary epithiliomatous cancer of the skin caused by tar, pitch, bitumen, mineral oil, anthracene, or the compounds, products or residues of these substances, the Committee regrets to note that no specific measure has been taken during the reporting period to recognize the occupational origin of such disease. The report states however that the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has established a working group to reform the current Act on Occupational Diseases (1343/1988), which will consider the Committee’s recommendations in this respect. The Committee hopes that the Government in the near future will take measures to expressly recognize occupational origin of the disease mentioned in item No. 27 of the list given in Schedule I to the Convention, so as to dispense the afflicted workers of the burden of proof.
Finally, the Committee hopes that the Government will reply to the observation made by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) in its next report.
[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2009.]
With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report, as well as the statements made in this connection by the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers (TT), the Employers' Confederation of Service Industries in Finland, the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) and the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals (AKAVA).
Article 8 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the list of occupational diseases contained in Decree No. 1347 of 1988 does not mention the following diseases which appear in the list (amended in 1980) included in Schedule I to the Convention: (a) broncho-pulmonary diseases caused by hard-metal dust (item No. 2); (b) primary epithiliomatous cancer of the skin caused by tar, pitch, bitumen, mineral oil, anthracene, or the compounds, products or residues of these substances (item No. 27). Consequently, it has asked the Government to indicate how in practice the workers afflicted with the above diseases can benefit from the presumption of their occupational origin when they are engaged in work involving exposure to the risks concerned, and on whom rests the burden of proof.
In reply, the Government indicates that for a disease to be diagnosed as occupational, a two-step causality relationship must be established. First of all, the causality must be generally acknowledged, i.e. there must be evidence based on scientific research that exposure to the agent in question may cause the disease concerned. This requirement is considered to have been met if such a connection is mentioned in the list of Decree No. 1347. Secondly, it must be shown that the disease examined in each individual case is likely to have been caused primarily by such exposure. Sufficient on-the-job exposure of an employee with a diagnosed disease is an adequate basis for compensation in the case of diseases referred to in the said list. Otherwise, a normal medical explanation of the sufficiency of the exposure as the primary cause of the disease is required, taking into account the employee's individual circumstances and lifestyle. The Government does not indicate on whom rests the burden of proof in this two-step procedure of establishing the causality relationship proving the occupational origin of the disease, particularly as regards the diseases not mentioned in the list of Decree No. 1347.
The Committee understands from this information that while the proof of the occupational origin of the diseases mentioned in the list of Decree No. 1347 in the second stage of this procedure is greatly facilitated by the general presumption of the existence of the causality relationship between exposure to the agent concerned and the related disease in the first stage, this would not be the case for diseases which do not figure on this list and for which proof should be established on a case-by-case basis after an appropriate scientific and medical inquiry. With respect to the first stage inquiries, the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals (AKAVA) highlights the problem of the establishment of causality specifically as regards broncho-pulmonary diseases caused by impurities in indoor air, while with respect to the second stage medical explanation, the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) expresses its concern over conflict situations between the attending physician and the insurance company's expert physician arising from differences of opinion concerning the work-related nature of an occupational disease. In the light of these comments, the Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to the fact that the inclusion of the occupational diseases mentioned in items Nos. 2 and 27 into the list given in Schedule I to the Convention, resulted from the irrefutable body of international evidence establishing the causality link between the exposure to the agent and the disease in question under prescribed conditions and, consequently, an automatic presumption of their occupational origin dispensing the afflicted workers of the burden of proof. It therefore asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to ensure that the workers exposed to the risk concerned and afflicted with the abovementioned diseases could fully benefit from the presumption of their occupational origin established by the Convention. In this respect the Committee further notes from the comments made by the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers (TT) and the Employers' Confederation of Service Industries in Finland that preparatory work is being carried out to revise the list of occupational diseases on the basis of current knowledge. The Committee hopes that in this process consideration will be given to the possibility of completing the list of occupational diseases of Decree No. 1347 of 1988 by the diseases mentioned in items Nos. 2 and 27 of the list given in Schedule I to the Convention. The Government is asked to indicate any progress made in this respect in its next report.
Article 21. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the statistics for the period 1993-99 concerning changes of the working age index and the retirement age index used for adjusting employment injuries and survivors' pensions payable under the Accident Insurance Act to rising pay and price levels. The Committee points out that, in the absence of the concomitant data for the same period on the evolution of the cost of living and the general level of earnings, it is impossible for the Committee to assess the situation fully. It therefore once again expresses the hope that the Government will be able to supply in its next report all the statistical information requested under this Article in the report form adopted by the Governing Body.
Article 8 of the Convention. In reply to the Committee's previous comments, the Government confirms that the list of the physical, chemical or biological agents present in work and the typical pathological manifestations likely to be caused by the agent in question, contained in section 3 of Decree No. 1347 of 1988, is not exhaustive; even if a factor or disease is not mentioned in the list, a disease can be compensated for as an occupational disease if it is probably and primarily caused by subjection to a physical, chemical or biological factor at work. According to the Government, this procedure will be applied to the following diseases, which are not mentioned in Decree No. 1347 despite the fact that they figure in the list of occupational diseases (amended in 1980) in Schedule 1 to the Convention: (a) broncho-pulmonary diseases caused by hard-metal dust (item No. 2); and (b) primary epitheliomatous cancer of the skin caused by tar, pitch, bitumen, mineral oil, anthracene, or the compounds, products or residues of these substances (item No. 27). The Committee notes this information with interest. It would like the Government to indicate how in practice the workers afflicted with the above diseases can benefit from the presumption of their occupational origin when they are engaged in work involving exposure to the risks concerned, and on whom rests the burden of proof.
The Committee has also taken note of the observations presented by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK).
Article 21 of the Convention. The Committee takes note of some statistical data covering the implementation of this Article of the Convention which calls for the adjustment of long-term benefits due in case of employment injury. In order to fully assess the situation the Committee would like the Government to supply in its next report all the statistical data requested under Article 21 (questions B, C and D) by the report form adopted by the Governing Body.
Article 8 of the Convention
1. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee takes note of Act No. 1343 and Decree No. 1347 respecting occupational diseases which were adopted on 29 December 1988. In this connection, it notes that section 1 of Act No. 1343 defines "occupational disease" as "a disease which has probably been caused mainly by physical, chemical or biological agents in work which has been performed on the basis of a wage-earning or salaried relationship or in activity as an agricultural entrepreneur". In section 2 of the Act, a causal relationship between a disease within the meaning of section 1 and a physical, chemical or biological agent present in work shall be deemed to exist where an agent specified in the Decree has been present in the work to such an extent that it may be the principal cause of the disease. Section 3 of Decree No. 1347 gives a list of physical, chemical and biological agents and, for each agent, lists a number of typical pathological manifestations likely to be caused by the agent in question. The Committee understands that the list of pathological manifestations is not restrictive and that consequently, for the workers exposed to the agents mentioned in section 3 of Decree No. 1347 the occupational origin of the disease is presumed, whatever the pathological manifestation. The Committee asks the Government to confirm whether this is indeed the case. Please indicate also whether diseases other than those caused by the agents mentioned in section 3 of Decree No. 1347 of 1988 can be considered as occupational diseases within the meaning of section 1, subsection 1, of Ordinance No. 1343 of 1988.
2. Decree No. 1347 of 1988 does not mention the following diseases despite the fact that they appear in the list of occupational diseases (amended in 1980) in Schedule 1 to the Convention: (a) broncho-pulmonary diseases caused by hard-metal dust (item No. 2 in the list in the Convention); (b) primary epithiliomatous cancer of the skin caused by tar, pitch, bitumen, mineral oil, anthracene, or the compounds, products or residues of these substances (item No. 27). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate how the workers afflicted with the above diseases can benefit from the presumption of their occupational origin when they are engaged in work involving exposure to the risks concerned.
The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in its report as well as of the coming into force of the new Occupational Diseases Act No. 1343 of 1988. It also notes certain observations made by the Finnish Employers' Confederation (STK), the Employers' Confederation of Service Industries (LTK), the Commission for Local Authority Employers (KT), the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) and the Confederation of Salaried Employees (TVK), which have been communicated by the Government in its report.
In view of the time necessary for translating the new Occupational Diseases Act, the Committee is not in a position to consider this case at the present session. It decided to defer its examination to its session in March 1991.