Date when decision was rendered: 8.4.1994

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1383; S93/1310

Reference to source

KKO 1994:26.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1994 I January-June

Högsta domstolens avgöranden 1994 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1994 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1994

Pages: pp. 141-145

Subject

labour law, right to be heard,
arbetsrätt, rätt att höras,
työoikeus, oikeus tulla kuulluksi,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 17-1, 22, 38 of the Employment Contracts Act

= arbetsavtalslagen 17 § 1 mom., 22 §, 38 §

= työsopimuslaki 17 § 1 mom., 22 §, 38 §.

ECHR-6

Abstract

In a labour law dispute concerning the dismissal of an employee on sick leave, the court of first instance concluded that the employee in question, Y, fell within the category of persons protected against illegal dismissal by a collective agreement, and that he therefore was entitled to pay for the period of notice.

His former employer, company X, brought the case to the court of appeal.The court of appeal asked for the opinion of the Labour Court, but did not find it necessary to hear the parties regarding the statement of the Labour Court.In its statement, the Labour Court found that the provisions of the collective agreement were not applicable to Y.Because of his position as an administrative director in the company, Y fell outside the category of persons that the collective agreement applied to.Taking into account the statement of the Labour Court, the court of appeal concluded that Y's dismissal was not illegal and quashed the decision of the court of first instance.

Y appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the court of appeal should have heard him regarding the statement of the Labour Court.The Supreme Court agreed, taking into account the case law of the European Court and Commission of Human Rights regarding Article 6 of the ECHR (the Feldbrugge case, judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A, No.99, and the Kamasinski case, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A, No.168), according to which a court should reserve a party a possibility to be heard regarding statements obtained ex officio by the court.The court of appeal should have asked Y for a written comment regarding the statement of the Labour Court.However, the parties had later studied the statement of the Labour Court and had included their comments on that statement to their own statements submitted to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court accepted the reasoning of the main decision of the court of appeal and upheld the decision.

6.4.1998 / 3.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 13.8.2020

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. 52018/611; 1154

Reference to source

KKO:2020:58.

Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för Högsta domstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

right to be heard, labour law, participation,
rätt att höras, arbetsrätt, deltagande,
oikeus tulla kuulluksi, työoikeus, osallistuminen,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 7, 46 and 50 of the Act on Cooperation within Undertakings

= lag om samarbete inom företag 7 §, 46 § och 50 §

= laki yhteistoiminnasta yrityksissä 7 §, 46 § ja 50 §.

Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

An employer had introduced separate consultation procedures simultaneously within two different personnel groups.The purpose was to reduce costs by reducing staff.As a result, 14 employees lost their jobs.Eleven of them argued that the employer had failed to observe the provisions of the Act on Cooperation with Undertakings (334/2007) for not having combined the two consultation procedures.They claimed indemnification by virtue of the indemnification clause in the Act.

The Act on Cooperation within Undertakings incorporates into national law the provisions of the Information and Consultation of Employees Directive 2002/14/EC and the Collective Redundancies Directive 98/59/EC.The Supreme Court noted that the Act should be interpreted, as far as possible, in the light of the two directives and Article 27 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights concerning workers' right to information and consultation.The provisions of the two directives and the Act leave it for the employer to decide whether simultaneously projected measures are discussed in separate consultation procedures or a joint procedure.A key element is that the representatives of the personnel groups, whom the projected measures concern, are consulted on each such measure.Whether this is in joint or separate procedures, the employer has a duty to see to it that the procedure meets with the requirements set in the Act on Cooperatiuon within Undertakings and that the employees' right to information and consultation is ensured.

In this case, the representatives of the personnel groups concerned had received at the early stage of the consultation procedures information about projected measures that were relevant with regard to issues discussed in both procedures.The personnel groups concerned where represented by the same shop steward, who participated in both procedures and was thus informed of the developments in each procedure.The final decision on measures which were concerning both personnel groups was made by the employer only after both consultation procedures had been completed.The Supreme Court ocncluded that the employer had not failed to observe the provisions of the Act on Cooperation within Undertakings.Workers' right to information and consultation, as guaranteed in the Collective Redundancies Directive and Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, was not deprived of its effectiveness.There were thus no grounds for an indemnification claim.

3.7.2023 / 3.7.2023 / RHANSKI