Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2023, publiée 112ème session CIT (2024)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Finlande (Ratification: 1951)

Autre commentaire sur C098

Observation

Demande directe

2023
2020
2003
2002
1993

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Previous comment

The Committee takes note of the observations from the Federation of Finnish Enterprises (SY), as well as general observations from the Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK) that were included in the Government’s report. The Committee also notes the observations on the Convention made by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), the Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees (STTK) as well as the SY, and the EK, which were transmitted with the Government’s report on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee further notes the observations made by the SAK and the STTK on collective bargaining, which were transmitted with the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (no 154). The issues raised by these different observations are being addressed in the present comment.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference. While the SAK’s concerns regarding alleged acts of discrimination against shop stewards and alleged actions to break strikes are being treated under, respectively, the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135) and the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee takes note here of the observations from the SAK regarding alleged acts of anti-union discrimination against workers. The SAK argues that examples of anti-union discriminations in Finland include lockouts applied to unionized workers only. The SAK also observes that the SY (i) advised employers to reimburse their employees’ membership fee for non-unionized unemployment funds, and (ii) encouraged non-unionized employers to cease paying for their employees’ trade union membership fee. According to the SAK, in practice, employers only reimbursed the unemployment fund membership fee of the non-unionized workers. The Committee also takes note of the response provided by the SY, according to which, under Finnish law, (i) trade unions and unemployment funds must be kept separate, (ii) employers are free to decide which benefits they provide to employees, and (iii) non-unionized employers are not required to pay trade union membership fees for their employees. Moreover, according to the SY, the SAK’s observations are irrelevant as they do not relate to the implementation of the ILO Conventions. In view of the opposite views expressed by the social partners regarding alleged acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Extension of collective agreements. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to comment on the opposite views expressed by the social partners with respect to (i) the general applicability of collective agreements and (ii) the SY’s comments that the alleged impossibility for non-unionized employers to deviate from such collective agreements through the conclusion of workplace-level agreements is contrary to the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that a non-unionized employer, who is bound by a generally applicable nation-wide collective agreement, may conclude a local agreement to the extent that it does not contain weaker terms than the nation-wide agreement, unless the nation-wide agreement or the law expressly allows it. The Government adds that the Finnish Constitutional Law Committee held that the Finnish system in that regard is compatible with the principle of negative freedom of association, as enshrined in the Finnish constitution. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government. Highlighting the provisions of the Collective Agreements Recommendation, 1951 (No. 91) in this respect, the Committee recalls that it considers that the extension of collective agreements is not contrary to the principle of voluntary collective bargaining and that it is not a violation of the Convention (see General Survey 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights a work, paragraph 245).

Collective bargaining levels. The Committee notes the observations from the SAK and the STTK, according to which employers, led by organizations like the EK, have taken steps to undermine the established system of collective bargaining at the national level. The SAK and the STTK observe that employers, in particular in the forestry and technological sectors, withheld from negotiations at national level, preferring negotiations at company level, thereby threatening the workers’ rights. The Committee also notes of the EK’s response, according to which, while collective bargaining shifted from the national level to the sectoral level, collective agreements still maintain the same coverage within the EK’s member federations. The Committee further takes note of the SY’s observations according to which freedom of association does not require employers to negotiate with trade unions. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that, in 2020, the Finnish Forest Industries Federation withdrew from national collective bargaining, allowing terms of employment to be negotiated at the company level. The Government adds that, in 2021, the Technology Industries of Finland split into two associations, with the Federation of Technology Industries of Finland withdrawing from national collective bargaining and transferring the responsibility to a new employers’ association, the Federation of Technology Industry Employers of Finland. The Government reports that the coverage of collective agreements in Finland only decreased slightly from 2014, with 89 percent of employees being covered by such agreements. The Committee recalls that collective bargaining must be voluntary and that the public authorities are under the obligation to ensure its promotion. The Committee also recalls the need to ensure that collective bargaining is possible at all levels, including both at the national level and at the enterprise level. Accordingly, legislation that unilaterally imposes a level of bargaining or makes it compulsory for bargaining to take place at a specific level raises problems of compatibility with the Convention. The Committee further recalls that, in countries where collective bargaining takes place at several levels, parties to negotiations should seek to ensure that there is coordination among these levels (see General Survey 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights a work, paragraphs 200, 222–223). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to promote voluntary collective bargaining at all levels, including at the national level and at the enterprise level. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate how coordination among these levels is ensured.

Legislative developments. The Committee recalls that, according to article 7 of the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), ratified by Finland, measures taken by public authorities to encourage and promote the development of collective bargaining shall be the subject of prior consultation and, whenever possible, agreement between public authorities and employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee therefore expresses the hope that the views of the social partners, regarding the upcoming reforms under Finnish labour regulations, including those expressed by the SAK regarding the right to collective bargaining, will be duly addressed through tripartite social dialogue. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in that respect.