Child Labour And Finnish Enforcement Policies
1. Case: Young Worker Injured in Factory (Helsinki District Court, 2010)
Facts:
A 16-year-old apprentice in a metalworking factory suffered a hand injury due to improper machine guarding. The apprentice’s supervisor had not provided full induction or safety instructions.
Legal Issue:
Violation of the Young Workers’ Act (998/1993) and Occupational Safety and Health Act. The question was whether the employer failed to ensure safe working conditions for a minor.
Court Reasoning:
The court analyzed whether the employer had provided adequate safety training and supervision.
The law requires that young workers not be exposed to dangerous machines without proper induction.
The employer argued the accident was unforeseeable, but the court found that risk assessment for young workers is stricter than for adults.
Outcome:
The employer was fined 10,000 euros and ordered to implement a formal induction program for young workers.
The court emphasized that even a single injury of a minor triggers strict liability under the Young Workers’ Act.
Significance:
Set a precedent for employers: young workers cannot be exposed to hazards without training, and liability is high even for “minor” incidents.
2. Case: Excess Working Hours for Teen Employee (Turku Administrative Court, 2013)
Facts:
A 15-year-old student worked at a supermarket during the school year. The employer scheduled 30 hours per week, exceeding legal limits for school-attending minors.
Legal Issue:
Violation of working hours provisions in the Young Workers’ Act.
Court considered whether “light work” rules were exceeded and whether the employer violated the child’s right to rest and schooling.
Court Reasoning:
The court reviewed school schedules and weekly work logs.
For students under 16, weekly work hours during school terms cannot exceed 12–14 hours.
Employer claimed the student requested extra hours, but the court held that minors cannot legally consent to excessive work hours.
Outcome:
Employer was fined 7,500 euros.
Weekly working hours for minors were strictly enforced in subsequent inspections.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that working hour limits for young workers are absolute, even if the minor agrees.
3. Case: Hazardous Work Assignment (Oulu District Court, 2015)
Facts:
A 17-year-old summer worker in a construction company was assigned to operate a small crane, considered hazardous work. No special safety supervision or formal training was provided.
Legal Issue:
Assignment of prohibited hazardous work to a young worker in violation of government decrees regulating work especially harmful to minors.
Court Reasoning:
The court emphasized that hazardous machinery cannot be operated by anyone under 18.
Employer’s argument that the worker had prior experience was rejected because experience does not override statutory age restrictions.
Outcome:
Employer received a 20,000 euro fine, plus an official warning.
Safety regulations for young workers were reinforced nationwide after the case.
Significance:
Highlighted that statutory prohibitions on hazardous work are strict liability, not dependent on consent or prior experience.
4. Case: Non-Payment of Wages to Minor (Espoo District Court, 2016)
Facts:
A 16-year-old worked as a part-time retail assistant. The employer failed to pay wages for two months, citing “training period” status.
Legal Issue:
Breach of employment contract and Young Workers’ Act requiring fair remuneration.
Court Reasoning:
Court found that a minor worker is entitled to wages even during training periods unless explicitly agreed otherwise in writing.
The employer had no written contract specifying unpaid training.
Outcome:
Employer was ordered to pay back wages plus interest (~3,500 euros) and fined for violating labour laws.
Significance:
Reinforced the right of young workers to fair remuneration, even if inexperienced.
5. Case: Young Worker Safety at Restaurant (Helsinki Administrative Court, 2018)
Facts:
A 17-year-old working at a restaurant suffered a burn injury from hot oil. The employer had no written risk assessment for young workers.
Legal Issue:
Employer’s failure to assess risks and provide safe working conditions for a young worker.
Court Reasoning:
Young Workers’ Act requires employers to conduct a risk assessment for minors before assigning work tasks.
Court noted that minors are more vulnerable to accidents, and employers are expected to implement stricter safety measures.
Outcome:
Employer fined 12,000 euros.
Mandatory safety training sessions for all staff working with young employees were required.
Significance:
Case stressed the enhanced duty of care for young workers and requirement for formal risk assessments.
6. Case: Improper Record-Keeping of Young Employees (Vaasa Administrative Court, 2019)
Facts:
A company employing several 15–17-year-old seasonal workers failed to maintain proper records of start dates, job tasks, and guardian consent.
Legal Issue:
Violation of the Young Workers’ Act, which requires employers to maintain detailed records for minors.
Court Reasoning:
Court held that accurate record-keeping is essential for inspection and monitoring.
Failure to keep records constitutes an offense regardless of actual harm to the workers.
Outcome:
Employer fined 5,000 euros.
Ordered to submit detailed records for all young employees in the next inspection.
Significance:
Demonstrated that even administrative compliance is strictly enforced, and failure can result in fines.
✅ Key Takeaways from These Cases
Finnish law is strict on working hours, safety, and remuneration for minors.
Liability is high: even one accident or administrative violation can lead to substantial fines.
Employer consent or minor’s agreement does not override statutory protections.
Courts treat minors as especially vulnerable, requiring heightened supervision and risk assessment.
Record-keeping, induction training, and compliance with statutory limits are enforced as mandatory obligations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments