Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2011, Publicación: 101ª reunión CIT (2012)

Convenio sobre las prestaciones en caso de accidentes del trabajo y enfermedades profesionales, 1964 [Cuadro I modificado en 1980] (núm. 121) - Finlandia (Ratificación : 1968)

Otros comentarios sobre C121

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Article 8 of the Convention. With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee notes that hard-metal pneumoconiosis is listed as a typical occupational disease caused by cobalt and its compounds in section 3(6) of Decree No. 1387 on occupational diseases of 29 December 1988, as amended. With respect to occupational diseases in item No. 27 of the list in Schedule I of the Convention, the Government states that dry distillation products of wood and coal and distillation residues of crude oil, as well as diseases caused by them, such as cancer of the skin were included in Decree No. 639 and Decision No. 640 of 1967 previously in force, and that new legislation is being drafted to incorporate these diseases again in Finnish legislation. The Committee requests the Government to submit new legislation once it is adopted.

Observations by the Central Organization of Union of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK). The Committee recalls that the Government’s report of 2007 contained the statement of SAK that the Employment Accidents Insurance Act did not respond anymore to the changed requirements of working life and that compensation for occupational accidents was problematic, in particular for upper limb injuries. SAK also referred to the incoherence in the determination of the annual income to establish the level of compensation which puts employees in unequal positions. Daily sickness benefits in case of a temporary incapacity, compensated at a rate of 100 per cent, were reduced by 15 per cent when converted into an accident pension, and were not taken into account for the calculation of the old-age pension. In the direct request of 2008 the Committee invited the Government to reply to SAK’s observations. The Government replied in 2009 that tripartite negotiations have been conducted on the grounds for compensation for certain strain injuries of the upper limbs and that the drafting of necessary amendments was under way; in other respects a reply to the observations will be provided in the context of the next periodic report.

Observations by the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland (AKAVA). In its comments included in the Government report of 2009, AKAVA expressed its concern about the situation of employees who contracted the skin diseases mentioned in item 26 of Schedule I of the Convention due to exposure to biological agents from water damage in buildings. These employees might find themselves without an income after the expiration of the maximum period of sickness benefits because the Social Insurance Institution does not consider them incapable to work or entitled to benefits. Compensation through statutory accident insurance might be a problem with respect to establishing the burden of proof of the cause of the disease. AKAVA indicated that compensation practices of insurance companies responsible for the implementation of the statutory accident insurance are incoherent and poorly managed. Employees might be without any source of income when they are unable to return to work and the employer refuses to employ them at other premises. The Committee recalls that AKAVA already highlighted the question of the establishment of the burden of proof in the report of 1999 with respect to broncho-pulmonary diseases caused by impurities in indoor air, to which no reply from the Government was received.

The Committee considers that the observations of SAK and AKAVA raise substantial problems regarding the application of the Convention in law and practice, which require much more focused attention from the Government. The Committee requests that in future the Government will reply to the observations of the workers’ organizations in a thorough and detailed manner, so that the ILO supervisory bodies may fully benefit from the practical knowledge and wisdom of the social partners. The Committee expects that the Government’s next report due in 2012 will contain full explanations on all the questions concerning the application of the Convention in Finland raised by the national trade union organizations since 1999.