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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the information provided, including references made to new legislation adopted including, in particular, the information provided regarding Act No. 400 of 2008, requiring machinery to be designed and constructed in such a way that the safety and health risks caused by noise pollution and machine-generated vibration are reduced to the lowest possible level. The Committee notes the information provided regarding effect given to Articles 4(2), 8, 11(1), (2) and 15 of the Convention. The Committee further notes the comments from the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) included in the Government’s report and the comments from the Finnish Construction Trade Union, a member of SAK, attached to the report on the application of the Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 (No. 139).

Article 4(1) of the Convention. Prevention and control of air pollution. The Committee also notes the comments made by the Finnish Construction Trade Union that, regardless of the Decree on Construction Work Safety (205/2009), which entered into force in 2009, and lays down provisions for measuring the exposure limit values for dust and chemicals in workplace air by the employer, the occupational safety and health authorities have not set any requirements for employers to conduct these measurements. Noting that the Government does not address these comments in its report under this Convention or under Convention No. 139, the Committee asks the Government to respond to them in its next report.

Article 6(2). Shared workplaces. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s response that the occupational safety authorities supervise safety and health of shared workplaces as part of its normal supervision. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the practical application of sections 49–55 of Occupational Safety and Health Act No. 738, of 2002, and Chapter 5a of Act No. 44, of 2006, in regard to workplaces where two or more employers undertake activities simultaneously.

Article 9. Technical measures. The Committee notes SAK’s comments that instead of taking the measures required under Article 9, enterprises are simply substituting personal protective equipment for them. Noting that the Government does not address these comments in its report, the Committee asks the Government to respond to them in its next report.

Article 11(3). Alternative employment or other measures offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure to air pollution, noise and vibration is medically inadvisable. The Committee notes the Government’s response that, generally, employers have to allocate workers to tasks not involving a risk to their health and safety. However, if an employer is unable to do so, an assessment should be made as to whether the employment relationship should be terminated. The Committee further notes the information that, according to the Employment Accidents Act (608/1948), compensation for an injury or illness covers the employee’s medical treatment, daily allowance, accident pension, handicap allowances, costs and loss of income arising out of physical therapy, and that this Act seems only to cover situations where an illness or health impairment has been declared. However, the Committee notes that the scope of Article 11 is wider, in that it also includes situations before any damage has occurred but after a medical determination that continued assignment is considered inadvisable. The Committee requests the Government to indicate measures taken or envisaged to ensure that every effort is made to provide a worker, whose continued assignment to work involving exposure to noise and vibration is medically inadvisable, with suitable alternative employment or to maintain their income through social security measures in accordance with this provision of the Convention.

Article 12. Notification to competent authority. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s response that, the occupational safety authorities monitor exposure to occupational hazards due to air pollution, noise and vibration. The Committee notes that no information has been provided in regard to the Committee’s previous requests, and therefore reiterates its requests for the Government to provide information in its next report on measures taken or envisaged to ensure full application of Article 12 of the Convention, and to provide comments on the concerns expressed by SAK with respect to the reporting procedure and the supervision of products and markets at all levels.

Article 14. Research. The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in regard to research undertaken into the health effects of exposure to hand-arm vibration among metalworkers and on air impurities due to pellet storage. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information with respect to evaluation and management of risks due to air pollution, vibration and noise at the workplace. With reference to SAK’s previous comments, the Government is also requested to provide specific information on OSH developments in SMEs, regarding research with respect to noise and developments concerning hearing damage.

Article 16(b). Inspection services. The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government in regard to inspections made by the occupational safety and health authorities, in particular, that there has been a decrease in the number of inspections, workplaces inspected and time used at the inspections from 2008 to 2009. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the causes for the above decreases and on measures taken or envisaged to address this aspect.

Part IV of the report form. The Committee notes the statistics on occupational accidents and diseases based on noise and vibration. The Committee further notes the comments made by SAK, that air quality measurements are conducted infrequently even though the air contains harmful dust and solvents, including mould spores and toxins produced by moisture damage. The Committee also notes that this is partially due to the fact that employers do make sufficient use of outside experts and the OSH authorities have limited resources. The Committee asks the Government to respond to SAK’s comments and to continue to give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied in the country, including relevant statistics.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

1. The Committee notes the detailed information contained in the Government’s report and notes with interest that the following new legislation give continued effect to the Convention as regards exposure to air pollutants: Ordinance No. 715 of 9 August 2001, on chemical agents at the workplace, Ordinance No. 716 of 3 August 2000, on combating the risks of work-related cancers and Ordinance No. 1153 of 8 December 1999, on in-air tobacco smoke and combating the associated risks of cancer at work; vibration: Ordinance No. 48 of 27 January 2005, on the protection of workers from risks caused by vibrations; and noise: Ordinance No. 85 of 26 January 2006, on the protection of workers from risks caused by noise. With reference to previous observations from Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) concerning preventive occupational safety and health management – particularly in small enterprises – the Committee notes the Government’s reference to the recently adopted Occupational Safety and Health Act No. 738 of 23 August 2002 which requires all employers – including small enterprises – to prepare an action plan for occupational safety and health (OSH) at work and to analyse and assess the risks caused by the work and that, in practice, the methods applied to identify and assess the risks are determined by the employer’s branch of industry, nature of the activity and the size of the workplace, as well as other special features. With reference to the observations by the SAK, included in the Government’s most recent report, concerning the absence of legislation addressing stress at work the Committee notes that this question is not regulated in the present Convention.

2. Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Guidelines. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that guidelines have been issued to assist in the assessment of the risks caused by air pollution at the workplace, but that the report is silent as regards relevant guidelines to further implement the new legislation adopted concerning noise and vibration at the workplace. The Committee requests the Government indicate whether guidelines have been issued or are envisaged implementing the new legislation with respect to noise and vibration at the workplace.

3. Article 6, paragraph 2. Shared workplaces. With reference to the previously expressed concerns by the SAK regarding certain deficiencies in the health care in shared workplaces, the Committee notes with interest that both sections 49-55 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act No. 738 of 2002 and Chapter 5a of Act No. 44 of 2006 on the supervision of labour protection and occupational safety and health collaboration at the workplace provide detailed rules to ensure the collaboration to be undertaken whenever two or more employers undertake activities simultaneously at one workplace. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the practical application of the newly adopted legislation applicable to workplaces where two or more employers undertake activities simultaneously.

4. Article 8. Exposure limits. With respect to exposure to air pollutants, the Committee notes that, in addition to previously established limits for exposure to asbestos and for work involving lead, the so called HTP-values have been fixed for over 500 substances, or groups of substances, by Decision No. 109 of 2005 of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; that employers are required to take these values into account when assessing risks related to air pollution in the workplace; and that the Government intends to update this list on a regular basis, in accordance with the Convention. With respect to noise, the Committee notes with interest that section 4 of Ordinance No. 85 of 2006 establishes the lower exposure limit value to be 80 dB(A); the upper exposure value to be 85 dB(A) and the higher limit value being 87 dB(A) and that section 4 of Ordinance No. 48 of 2005 limits the daily exposure limit value for hand vibration in an eight-hour reference period to 5 m/s2 and all-body vibration to 1.5 m/s2. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on measures taken to supplement and revise on a regular basis the exposure limits in the light of current national and international knowledge. It also asks the Government to provide information with its next report on measures taken to ensure that, when determining exposure limits, account is taken for any increase in occupational hazards resulting from simultaneous exposure to several harmful factors at the workplace.

5. Article 11, paragraphs 1 and 2. Free medical examinations. The Committee notes that under the newly adopted Occupational Health Care Act (Act No. 1383 of 2001) the Council of State has issued a Decree on medical examinations in work that presents a special risk of illness (No. 1485 of 2001) and notes with interest that section 1 provides that employers shall bear all costs of the medical examinations, in accordance with this Article. The Committee notes that the Government intends to adopt revised guidance notes on the contents of medical examinations to replace those of 1994. The Committee hopes that the guidance notes on the contents of medical examinations will be adopted in the near future and asks the Government to transmit a copy of them once they have been adopted.

6. Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3. Alternative employment or other measurers offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure to air pollution, noise or vibration is found to be medically inadvisable. The Committee notes that the report is silent as regards the question of providing alternative employment in accordance with this Article of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the practical application of this Article, including information on efforts made to ensure that workers who cannot continue their assignment on medical grounds will be able to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise.

7. Article 12. Notification to competent authority. With reference to the SAK’s concerns that there appears to be major deficiencies in the reporting procedures and in the supervision of products and markets at all levels, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that there is no legislative provision requiring employers to notify the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment involving workers’ exposure to occupational hazards due to air pollution, noise or vibration in order to obtain the authorization of the competent authority to use such processes, substances, machinery and equipment. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report or measures taken or envisaged to ensure the full application of Article 12 of the Convention and to provide comments on the concerns expressed by SAK with respect to the reporting procedure and the supervision of products and markets at all levels.

8. Article 14. Research. The Committee notes that while the Government reports on special research activities with respect to air pollution, particularly in the construction industry, which have had positive effects in facilitating employers planning of the work and the supervision carried out by authorities, the Government indicates that similar research activities as regards risks related to vibration and noise has been negligible. Noting that the Government indicates that it intends to remedy this situation, the Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information with respect to evaluation and management of risks due to air pollution, vibration and noise at the workplace.

9. Article 15. Appointment of competent persons to deal with matters pertaining to the prevention and control of air pollution, noise and vibration in the working environment. The Committee notes that section 10 of the OSH Act provides that an employer who does not have adequate expertise to assess and evaluate work-related risks shall use external experts and ensure herself/himself that the expert has sufficient competence. It notes the concerns expressed by SAK claiming that in practice, employers do not avail themselves of this possibility, and that these experts do not always have the appropriate competence. The Committee further notes the competence of trained persons and experts is regulated in Ordinance No. 1484 of 2001 respecting the principles for good occupational health-care practice, the content of good occupational health care, trained persons and experts and vocational training required within occupational health care. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the practical application of this Article and to provide a response to the concern expressed by the SAK that employers do not make use of appointing an expert and to provide information on the actual competence for safety and health staff.

10. Article 16(b) and Part IV of the report form. Inspection services. The Committee notes that Act No. 44 of 20 January 2006 regulates further the manner in which occupational safety and health is supervised. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the practical application of the Convention in the country, including extracts from labour inspection services, reports, statistical information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, disaggregated by gender, if available, the number and nature of contraventions reported and actions taken. In the light of comments made by the SAK, the Government is requested to provide specific information on developments regarding OSH in small enterprises, regarding research with respect to noise and developments regarding hearing damage; and on collaborative efforts between employers and workers with respect to the prevention and control of air pollution, noise and vibration at the workplace.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes with interest the information provided in the Government's report in reply to its previous observation with respect to setting new exposure limits to air pollution, noise and vibration where appropriate, in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention and to ensuring that measures are prescribed for the prevention and control of, and protection against, these occupational risks due to these hazards as called for by Article 4. It also notes the comments made by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) communicated with the Government's report.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the concerns of the SAK that the grounds used to assess occupational hazards caused by air impurities, noise and vibration were still deficient and that there is still too little monitoring of the working environment and assessment of exposure. It had also noted the reply of the employers' organizations (TT and LTK) that the Convention did not call for binding limit values in a categoric fashion and that Finnish legislation did not lay down binding limit values, for example, with respect to noise exposure.

In its latest report, the Government indicates that, in December 1993, the Council of State issued a decision (1404/1993) on the protection of workers against the hazards raised from exposure to noise, by setting the exposure limit value even lower than the EU Directive 188/86/EEC, that it is intended to implement. Moreover, the decision sets a new exposure limit value for instantaneous peak value of repeated or isolated peaks of sound pressure. Should such exposure exceed one of these limits, the employer is obliged to draw up and carry out a noise control programme aimed at reducing noise as much as possible, taking into account technical progress and the availability of means of control of the noise particularly at the source. The Government adds that, on 22 December 1993, the Council of State also issued a decision on safety of machinery that fully responds to the EU Directive and contributes noise and vibration control by providing certain limit values which, when exceeded, oblige the manufacturer to declare the said limit values.

With respect to hand-arm and whole body vibration exposure, the Government indicates that there are no binding limit values and that it is still awaiting a new EU Physical Agents Directive. The Government adds that it will also try to include repeated shock type excitations (of percussive power tools) as this seems to be more dangerous to the health of workers than the "ordinary" non-impulsive vibration (or rotating or oscillating machinery). A working group has been set up under the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to consider the Finnish position on what the Directive under preparation by the EU should be.

With regard to exposure to air pollutants, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has issued a decision (365/1998), confirming new concentrations of air contaminants known to be hazardous.

In its latest observations, the SAK states that there are still shortcomings in preventive occupational health and safety management in companies. In small companies particularly, there are big gaps from the point of view of action programmes for occupational health and safety and in surveying the risks involved. It considers that monitoring operations should pay more attention to noise control programmes and that monitoring measurements are at present aimed mainly at verifying the more obvious defects. Measuring and monitoring of workplace hygiene conditions, which it considers is a basic prerequisite for protection, is at a low level in the construction sector. In its view, the action required by the regulations is not being adequately implemented.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to take measures to set, supplement and revise regularly, exposure limits in respect of air pollution, noise and vibration, where appropriate, in light of current national and international knowledge and data, as called for by Article 8 of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide further information on preventive occupational health and safety management and surveying of risks in small companies and monitoring and measurement of occupational safety and health conditions in the construction sector.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes with interest the information provided in the Government's report in reply to its previous observation with respect to penalties imposed in accordance with Article 16 of the Convention. It further notes the statements made by the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers (TT), the Employers' Confederation of Service Industries (LTK) and the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), communicated with the Government's report concerning the application of the Convention.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the concerns raised by the Finnish workers' organizations (SAK and TVK) that the measures taken by the Government were insufficient for meeting the requirements of Article 8 because there were not enough limit values with respect to air pollution, noise and vibration which were legally binding on the employers. In this regard, the employers' organizations had stated that the creation of the Council for the Assessment of Health Risks of Chemicals and the Chemical Labour Protection Advisory Council had improved the administrative arrangements necessary for the application of this Article of the Convention.

In its latest report, the Government refers to the Council of State Decision (920/92) which provides that the Ministry of Labour may fix concentrations of airborne impurities known to be dangerous which the employer must take into account when assessing the hazards of the workplace and workers' exposure (section 6). By virtue of this Decision, these concentrations must be set in the light of scientific knowledge and, in particular, must take into account the reference limit values published by the Commission of the European Communities. Furthermore, section 5 of the Decision provides that the Council of State shall, if necessary, separately fix binding limit values for workplace air impurity which, if exceeded, shall require the employer to take immediate action to reduce the levels of exposure.

In their latest observations, the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) states that the grounds used to assess occupational hazards caused by air impurities, noise and vibration are still deficient and that there is still too little monitoring of the working environment and assessment of exposure. In reply, the employers' organizations (TT and LTK) stated that the Convention did not call for binding limit values in a categoric fashion and recalled that Finnish legislation did lay down some binding limit values, for example, with respect to noise exposure.

The Committee would recall that Article 8 of the Convention calls for the competent authority to establish criteria for determining the hazards of exposure to air pollution, noise and vibration in the working environment and, where appropriate, to specify exposure limits on the basis of these criteria. Under Article 4, measures are to be prescribed for the prevention and control of, and protection against, occupational hazards due to air pollution, noise and vibration. Exposure limits may be necessary in order to ensure the effective protection of workers' health with respect to air pollution, noise and vibration. The Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that new limit values will be worked out as scientific grounds for determining the risks posed by chemical substances become clear. The Government has further indicated that the proposals will be processed by the tripartite Chemical Labour Protection Advisory Council. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on any new limit values set either by the Council of State under section 5 of Decision 920 of 1992 or by the Ministry of Labour under section 6.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the information and copies of new legislation provided by the Government in its report as well as the statements made by the Finnish Employers' Confederation (STK), the Employers' Confederation of Service Industries (LTK), the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) and the Confederation of Salaried Employees (TVK), communicated with the Government's report.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the creation of the Council for the Assessment of Health Risks of Chemicals and the Labour Protection Committee on Chemistry charged with the task of proposing binding limit values for impurities in the air. At that time, the employers' organisations (STK and LTK) had stated that these committees had improved the administrative arrangements necessary for the application of Article 8 of the Convention, whereas the workers' organisations (SAK and TVK) considered the measures taken by the Government insufficient for meeting the requirements of this Article as the bulletin adopted by the National Board of Labour Protection only covers impurities in the air and is not legally binding on the employers.

In their latest observations, the employers' organisations (STK and LTK) state that the Chemical Labour Protection Advisory Council (the Committee understands this to be the Labour Protection Committee on Chemistry created by the Council of State Resolution No. 585 of 6 June 1985) plays a key role in the preparation of official regulations to give effect to the Convention. The workers' organisations (SAK and TVK), however, continue to note that there are not enough mandatory regulations on limit values which are binding on the employer.

The Committee notes with interest the information supplied in the Government's report concerning the legally binding limit values for asbestos, benzene and lead compounds established by the Council of State. It notes, however, that there are as yet no legally binding limit values concerning other air pollutants, noise or vibration. In its report, the Government states that, although the instructions given by labour inspectors are not legally binding, the labour protection district office can take legal action against the employer, including the imposition of fines or imprisonment. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any specific cases in which legal action has been taken against an employer for failure to implement instructions concerning limits of exposure to air pollution, noise and vibration. Furthermore, in its previous direct requests, the Committee has asked the Government to indicate the type of penalties imposed when an employer fails to implement a labour inspector's instructions, in accordance with Article 16 of the Convention. As the Government's report has not indicated the nature of the penalties imposed, the Committee once again expresses the hope that the Government will not fail to indicate in its next report the penalties provided in order to ensure the observance of the instructions given by the labour inspector concerning measures for the prevention of the risks of air pollution, noise and vibration.