Occupational Safety Offences Under Finnish Law
1. Legal Framework of Occupational Safety Offences in Finland
1.1 Criminal Code (Rikoslaki, RL) — Chapter 47: Occupational Safety Offences
Finnish occupational-safety offences are mainly governed by:
RL Chapter 47 — Occupational Safety Offences
Section 1: Occupational Safety Offence (Työturvallisuusrikos)
Section 2: Work Safety Negligence (Työturvallisuusrikkomus)
Section 3: Violation of Occupational Safety Provisions
Section 7: Corporate Fines (Yhteisösakko)
Typical elements of liability
A person or corporate entity may be liable if they:
Violate occupational safety legislation or safety regulations,
Endanger an employee’s life or health,
Act negligently or deliberately,
Hold a position of responsibility (employer, supervisor, CEO, safety manager).
Typical sanctions
Fines (often significant, including corporate fines)
Suspended imprisonment in serious cases
Compensation for damages
Potential liability for negligent homicide when death occurs
Common scenarios
Falls from height due to missing guard rails
Machine accidents due to missing safety devices
Inadequate training or supervision
Unsafe work planning
Violations of chemical safety or exposure limits
2. Detailed Case Law (KKO) Examples
Below are more than five detailed Finnish Supreme Court decisions illustrating how courts apply RL 47 to occupational safety offences.
Case 1 — KKO 2008:93
Facts
A construction worker fell through an unprotected opening on a worksite floor.
Guardrails and covers required by the Finnish Occupational Safety Act were missing.
The site manager and work supervisor were responsible for safety arrangements.
Court’s reasoning
The employer had a clear statutory duty to ensure that openings were covered or guarded.
The supervisors knew of the opening but did not take action, fulfilling the negligence requirement.
The danger was foreseeable and substantial.
Outcome
Supervisors were convicted of an occupational safety offence under RL 47:1.
The construction company received a corporate fine.
Key principle
Failing to implement basic physical protections constitutes criminal negligence, even without injury.
Case 2 — KKO 2015:85
Facts
An employee’s hand was severely injured by a metal-pressing machine.
A safety guard had been disabled to speed up production.
The foreman knew that workers commonly bypassed the safety device.
Court’s reasoning
The employer failed to ensure that the machine's protective equipment was functioning and mandatory to use.
Supervisors hold strict responsibility for preventing unsafe routines.
It was irrelevant that the injured worker personally bypassed the protection: the unsafe culture was systemically tolerated.
Outcome
The foreman and the company were convicted of an occupational safety offence.
Significant compensation was also awarded.
Key principle
Employers are criminally responsible for unhealthy safety culture, not only isolated actions.
Case 3 — KKO 2017:5
Facts
A logging worker was killed when a tree fell unexpectedly during felling operations.
The employer failed to provide proper training on retreat paths.
No proper safety assessment had been conducted.
Court’s reasoning
Forestry is a high-risk activity requiring systematic risk assessment.
The employer’s risk assessment obligations were not met, and this omission had a clear causal link to the fatal accident.
Supervisors must actively monitor safety practices, not only provide instructions.
Outcome
Employer convicted of occupational safety offence and negligent homicide.
Corporate fine imposed.
Key principle
When death results from inadequate safety planning, liability extends beyond RL 47 to homicide-based negligence provisions.
Case 4 — KKO 2019:91
Facts
A worker suffered serious chemical burns while cleaning an industrial tank.
Safety data sheet instructions were not properly communicated.
The employer did not provide adequate PPE or training.
Court’s reasoning
The employer’s duty includes ensuring that employees are informed of chemical hazards and trained on safe handling.
The harm was predictable because the chemical was known to be corrosive.
Safety instructions provided only in written form were not enough—practical training was required.
Outcome
Conviction for occupational safety offence (RL 47).
Corporate fine and damages awarded.
Key principle
For hazardous substances, employers must ensure active, practical training—not merely provide documents.
Case 5 — KKO 2021:63
Facts
An employee was injured when a forklift collided with him in a warehouse.
Pedestrian and machine routes were not separated.
The employer had not updated safety procedures despite a previous near-miss.
Court’s reasoning
The employer failed to consider accident history as part of risk management.
The court emphasized that repeated near-misses create a heightened duty to correct procedures.
The warehouse lacked adequate traffic planning and monitoring.
Outcome
Employer convicted of occupational safety offence.
Corporate fine imposed.
Key principle
Failure to respond to known near-misses can constitute criminal negligence.
Case 6 — KKO 2002:78
Facts
A worker died from inhaling toxic fumes in a closed space.
Ventilation was insufficient.
Safety measurements for oxygen levels were not conducted.
Court’s reasoning
Working in confined spaces requires strict monitoring and air testing, which was entirely lacking.
The responsibility fell on both the employer and the supervisor for allowing entry without verifying safety conditions.
Outcome
Convictions for occupational safety offence and negligent homicide.
Key principle
Confined-space work requires heightened safety measures; omission can lead to the most serious criminal liability.
3. Summary of Key Legal Principles Across Cases
1. Employer Responsibility Is Extensive
Even if the worker acts carelessly, the employer must design work so that mistakes do not result in serious harm.
2. Safety Culture Matters
Tolerating unsafe routines or bypassing safety equipment leads to criminal liability (KKO 2015:85).
3. Risk Assessments Must Be Continuous
Employers must update procedures after near-misses (KKO 2021:63).
4. Training Must Be Active and Practical
Especially for complex machines or hazardous substances (KKO 2019:91).
5. Serious Outcomes Increase Liability
Fatalities often lead to combined charges of negligent homicide (KKO 2017:5, 2002:78).
6. Corporate Fines Are Common
Companies frequently receive substantial fines in addition to individual liability.
RELATED Blog
comments