Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 1991, Publicación: 78ª reunión CIT (1991)

The Committee takes note of the report submitted by the Government, which includes comments by the Finnish Employers' Confederation (STK), the Employers' Confederation of Services Industries (LTK) and the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK).

Referring to its previous comments relating to the insufficiency of penalties incurred by employers committing acts of anti-union discrimination and to the issue of burden of proof in such cases, the Committee notes from the Government's report that the degree to which it is possible for the parties to prove a certain fact is always taken into account. Therefore, while an employee alleging that he has been dismissed because of his union activities must present general evidence to that effect, under section 37(2) of the Employment Contracts Act, the employer must always prove that there was a substantial reason for the dismissal. The Committee further notes with interest that the Government was to table in Parliament, in the autumn of 1990, a proposal with a view to raising to 24 months' pay the maximum compensation for illegal dismissals, and that, since 1 March 1990, the protection afforded to shop stewards has been improved, including before and after their term as staff representatives.

The Committee notes however that, according to SAK, the penalties which guarantee security against discrimination are insufficient to have a preventive effect in the case of all unionised workers, and that the usefulness of sanctions is hindered by the fact that employees bear the burden of proof.

The Committee requests the Government to communicate, as soon as it is adopted, the text of the Act improving the protection afforded to shop stewards and raising the maximum compensation for illegal dismissals, and to provide in its future reports information on the practical application of the Convention in this regard.

The STK reiterates and the LTK states that the fact that acts of discrimination between employees (such as that which occurs when unionised employees put pressure on non-unionised employees to join trade unions) does not constitute a criminal offence is a serious defect. The Committee recalls in this respect that the protection afforded by Convention No. 98 against acts of anti-union discrimination concerns such acts by employers against workers, and not acts of this kind by trade unions.