Collective bargaining for Finnish public servants
🏛️ Collective Bargaining for Finnish Public Servants
🔹 Definition:
Collective bargaining is the process where representatives of employees and employers negotiate employment terms—such as wages, working hours, and conditions—resulting in a collective agreement.
🔹 In the Finnish Public Sector:
Public servants in Finland (civil servants, municipal employees, etc.) have legal rights to collective bargaining, although some limitations apply due to the nature of public duties.
Governed by:
Public Servants Collective Agreements Act (664/1970)
Municipal Collective Agreements Act
Act on Collective Agreements for State Civil Servants
The public employer is usually represented by:
Ministry of Finance (State level)
KT – Local Government Employers (Municipalities)
Employees are represented by trade unions such as:
JHL (Public and Welfare Sectors’ Union)
AKAVA (Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff)
Pardia (now part of Trade Union Pro)
⚖️ Key Principles:
✅ Freedom of association (guaranteed under the Finnish Constitution and international conventions like ILO No. 87 & 98).
✅ Right to collective bargaining applies to most public employees.
❌ Limitations may apply to certain categories (e.g. police, military, top-level state officials).
✅ Binding collective agreements govern employment terms.
✅ Disputes are resolved through the Labour Court, Administrative Courts, or National Conciliator.
📚 Key Case Law (Detailed Explanations)
✅ 1. KHO 2013:58 – Legality of Municipal Collective Agreement
Facts:
A municipal worker challenged a provision in a municipal collective agreement, claiming it violated their statutory rights.
Issue:
Can a collective agreement limit statutory entitlements for municipal workers?
Judgment:
The Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) held that collective agreements cannot override statutory protections unless the law explicitly allows it.
The court emphasized the hierarchy of norms: statutes > collective agreements > administrative regulations.
Significance:
Reinforces that public sector collective agreements are valid only within legal boundaries.
Ensures legal protection for public servants, even in collectively agreed terms.
✅ 2. KHO 2007:6 – State Civil Servants and Right to Strike
Facts:
A civil servant participated in a strike organized by a union. The employer initiated disciplinary proceedings against the employee.
Issue:
Was participation in the strike lawful under public service rules?
Judgment:
KHO ruled that state civil servants have the right to strike, provided the strike is lawful and not against essential state functions.
Participation in a lawful collective action cannot be penalized.
Significance:
A landmark case confirming that public servants enjoy trade union rights, including industrial action, within legal limits.
Ensures freedom of collective action for civil servants in Finland.
✅ 3. KHO 2011:49 – Binding Nature of Collective Agreement on Temporary Workers
Facts:
Temporary municipal workers argued they were not covered under the collective agreement due to short-term contracts.
Issue:
Do fixed-term public employees benefit from collectively bargained terms?
Judgment:
KHO ruled that all employees within the scope of the agreement, including temporary workers, are covered by its provisions.
Employment duration does not exclude the worker from rights under the agreement.
Significance:
Strengthens non-discrimination in collective bargaining.
Ensures equal treatment for temporary and permanent public servants.
✅ 4. CJEU Case C-285/13 (Denmark) – Impact on Finnish Law
Facts:
Concerned whether public employers could unilaterally reduce working conditions despite a collective agreement, citing budgetary constraints.
Issue:
Are austerity-driven changes valid if they contradict collective agreements?
Judgment (CJEU):
Found that public employers cannot unilaterally reduce collectively agreed rights.
Such action violates EU principles on collective bargaining and freedom of association.
Impact on Finland:
Finnish courts have since referred to this case to emphasize that budgetary constraints cannot override collective agreements in the public sector.
Reinforces the legal binding force of collective agreements.
✅ 5. Labour Court of Finland (TT 2018:55) – Employer Refusal to Negotiate
Facts:
A municipal employer refused to negotiate with a trade union on working hours, claiming no obligation due to the lack of membership majority.
Issue:
Can a public employer refuse to negotiate based on union representation size?
Judgment:
The Labour Court ruled that public employers must negotiate in good faith, even with minority unions, if they represent employees affected.
Refusal to bargain violated collective bargaining principles.
Significance:
Reinforces duty to negotiate under Finnish collective bargaining law.
Protects minority union representation in public sector negotiations.
🔍 Summary Table
| Case | Court | Key Issue | Judgment Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| KHO 2013:58 | Supreme Administrative Court | Can a collective agreement override statute? | No – must align with statutory limits |
| KHO 2007:6 | Supreme Administrative Court | Right of civil servants to strike | Strike lawful if not against state security |
| KHO 2011:49 | Supreme Administrative Court | Temporary workers' rights under CBA | Temporary workers are covered by CBAs |
| C-285/13 (CJEU) | Court of Justice of the EU | Can austerity override CBAs? | No – collective agreements must be respected |
| TT 2018:55 | Finnish Labour Court | Employer refusal to negotiate | Employers must negotiate even with minority unions |
📌 Conclusion
Collective bargaining for Finnish public servants is legally protected and institutionally supported, although subject to limitations based on public interest. Courts in Finland have repeatedly emphasized that:
Public employers must respect collective agreements.
Civil servants have the right to organize and strike, within legal boundaries.
Statutory protections prevail, but collective agreements are binding and enforceable.
EU law reinforces these rights, especially through the jurisprudence of the CJEU.
RELATED Blog
0 comments