Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Article 1 of the Convention. Forty-hour week. The Committee notes the provisions of the Working Hours Act (605/1996), as last amended in 2005, in particular sections 19–20 which fix the maximum amount of overtime to 138 hours in a four-month period, or 250 hours in a calendar year, with the possibility of agreeing on additional overtime of up to 80 hours per year while employees may be required to do up to five hours of preparation or completion work per week in addition to the maximum overtime hours. The Committee also notes that subject to these statutory numerical limits, overtime, which is defined as any work carried out on the employer’s initiative in excess of regular working hours, seems to be generally permissible, hence not limited to any specific conditions or circumstances justifying its use. The Committee wishes to refer, in this respect, to Paragraph 14 of the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116), which envisages exceptions of three kinds (permanent, temporary, periodical) to the normal hours of work and provides that the competent authorities in each country should determine the circumstances and limits of such exceptions. The Committee further refers to paragraph 79 of its General Survey of 1984 on working time in which it noted that undue facilitation of overtime, for example, by not limiting the circumstances in which it may be permitted or by allowing relatively high maximums, could in the most egregious cases tend to defeat the objective of a social standard of a 40‑hour week and make irrelevant the provisions as to normal working hours. The Committee therefore requests the Government to supply more detailed information on the conditions under which overtime is permissible in the light of the relevant provisions of Recommendation No. 116.

In addition, the Committee recalls its previous comment in which it expressed the view that allowing the averaging of working hours over a general reference period of one year appears to be too long to guarantee full application of the principle of a 40-hour week as embodied in the Convention. It once again refers to Paragraph 12(1) of Recommendation No. 116 which provides that the variable distribution of working hours over a period longer than one week should be permitted when special conditions in certain branches of activity or technical needs justify it. The Committee is obliged to reiterate that the longer the reference period, the greater the possible deviations from the regular weekly working hours, to the point of rendering eventually meaningless the very essence of the principle of progressive reduction of hours of work. The Committee requests the Government to provide full particulars, including all available statistics and any relevant documents, on working time flexibility schemes currently in place allowing weekly working hours to be averaged over a 52-week reference period, in particular the number of workers and types of enterprises concerned as well as an indication on the maximum amount of hours worked daily and weekly under such schemes.

Moreover, the Committee notes that, under section 29 of the Working Hours Act, when the practical organization of work so requires, the daily rest period may be shortened to seven hours, and even to five hours during no more than three consecutive days. The Committee considers that neither operational reasons nor the worker’s prior consent may justify such unreasonably short daily rest periods. This point has also been raised by the European Committee of Social Rights which in its 2007 conclusions found that the situation in Finland is not in conformity with Article 2(1) of the Revised Social Charter as the Working Hours Act permits daily rest period to be reduced to seven and even five hours. The Committee further considers that even though none of the Conventions Nos 1, 30 or 47 concerning hours of work – nor Recommendation No. 116 which was designed to facilitate their implementation – contains provisions on daily rest (as opposed to sectoral instruments such Conventions Nos 153 and 180 on road transport workers and seafarers respectively), the question of sufficient rest intervals between working days is intrinsically linked to the spirit of these instruments and their ultimate objective of ensuring meaningful protection against undue fatigue and also reasonable leisure and opportunities for recreation and social life. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide additional explanations as to how a policy of reducing working hours while maintaining the standard of living may be construed to be consonant with such restrictive provisions on daily rest periods.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide together with its next report up to date information on the practical application of the Convention, including for instance, extracts from labour inspection reports showing the number and nature of contraventions reported with regard to hours worked in excess of the 40-hour week; statistics concerning the categories and number of workers to whom the principle of 40-hour week has been applied and the number of hours worked in excess of the 40-hour week; the categories and number of workers to whom the principle of the 40-hour week has not as yet been applied and the normal hours of work applicable to these workers; official studies or reports on working time issues and especially the question of the reduction of hours of work in relation to factors such as the effect of new technologies and employment policy objectives; trends on working time arrangements as reflected in recent collective agreements, etc.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the comments made by the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers (TT), the Employers’ Confederation of Service Industries in Finland (Palvelutyönantajat), the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), the Commission for Local Authority Employers (KT) and the State Employer’s Office (VTML), concerning the averaging of the 40-hour week over a one-year period, which in Finland is permissible under section 6, paragraph 2, of the Working Hours Act (No. 605/1996) as amended by several Acts, including No. 624/2002.

The Government’s report and the employers’ comments state that in practice fixed regular weekly hours are the norm for working-hours arrangements, and that the average weekly working hours of waged and salaried employees are considerably shorter than 40 hours. The employers’ organizations TT and Palvelutyönantajat point out that the transition towards calculating working hours over periods longer than a week has been brought on by new arrangements in working hours and became a global trend. They further refer to EU Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time which allows the averaging of working time over a period longer than a week.

According to the workers’ organization, SAK, under collective agreements, calculation periods of six weeks, eight weeks, 26 weeks, three months or six months are not uncommon. It stresses that a period of six months should not be exceeded, in order to ensure that labour protection is not jeopardized. Also, the EU Council Directive 93/104/EC restricts the reference period for the calculation of the average working time to four months.

The Committee would like to point out that in general a reference period of up to one year appears to be too long to guarantee full application of the principle of 40 hours as embodied in the Convention. In fact, Paragraph 12(1) of the Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116), stipulates that the calculation of normal hours of work as an average over a period longer than a week should only be permitted when special conditions in certain branches of activities or technical needs justify it. Where hours of work are calculated as an average, it is clear that the longer the reference period is, the greater is also the risk of abuses. The averaging of working hours opens the possibility of employing a person for a longer period of time, for more than 40 hours a week and to terminate the employment relationship without balancing the working time to the average level of 40 hours.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to consider reviewing the legislation to ensure fuller application of the principle of the 40-hour week and to keep it informed on any developments in this direction.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report for the period ending May 1998. It also notes the information provided by the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland (AKAVA) on the results of the survey conducted in October 1997 on the average weekly hours of work of its members.

The Committee notes that, under section 6 of the Working Hours Act (No. 605/1996), normal daily working time may not exceed eight hours and weekly working time may not exceed 40 hours. The Committee notes that, according to section 6(2) of the Act in question, average weekly working time can be calculated on the basis of a period not exceeding 52 weeks. In this regard, the Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to the fact that compliance with daily or weekly working time-limits is an essential means for safeguarding the health and well-being of workers and protecting them against abuses. Where hours of work are calculated as an average, the longer the reference period, the greater the risk of such abuses. With reference to its 1967 General Survey on hours of work, the Committee recalls that calculation of normal hours of work as an average over a period longer than one week should be exceptional and should be limited to certain sectors in which technical needs justify it (paragraph 142).

In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it proposes to ensure full application of the principle of the 40-hour week embodied in the Convention and recalls that, under Article 1 of the Convention each Member ratifying the Convention declares its approval not only of the principle, but also undertakes to take or facilitate such measures as to apply this principle to the various classes of employment. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide general indications on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, providing as far as possible the information requested under point V of the report form.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee takes note with interest of the first and subsequent report of the Government. In this connection, it would be grateful if the Government would provide further information on the following point.

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, under section 4 of the Act on employment relationships of domestic workers, the 40-hour work-week is not applied to domestic workers. In their case, a worker's regular week may total 90 hours during a two-week period. The Committee hopes that future reports will indicate the progress made in extending the principle of the 40-hour week to this category of workers.