Chancellor of Justice Tuomas Pöysti was photographed in Helsinki on 3 May 2024. Pöysti has expressed his concern about a government proposal to set new guidelines for the national conciliator for approaching disputes between employee and employer organisations, report YLE and Helsingin Sanomat. (Vesa Moilanen – Lehtikuva)
- Next Article Finland to scale back planning obligations in early-childhood education
CHANCELLOR of Justice Tuomas Pöysti has questioned a government proposal for establishing new guidelines for the national conciliator for settling labour disputes between employer and employee representatives, reports Helsingin Sanomat.
“In summary, I argue that the government should reconsider both submitting the proposal and the regulatory alternatives,” he stated in his comment.
The proposal stipulates that national conciliators should approach their duties in a way that ensures the smooth functioning of labour markets and wage formation in order to “safeguard the national economy and other common good,” in practice by making sure the settlement does not threaten the competitiveness or carrying capacity of the economy.
Pöysti said the clarification could steer interpretations of the regulation so that conciliators pay greater attention to the views of employers than employees.
The government has drafted the proposal to reinforce the role of key export industries in setting maximum limits for pay rises for collective bargaining across the economy. Originally it was proposing that the national conciliator be prohibited from presenting settlement proposals with pay rises that exceed those in the export industries, a stance that was an impetus for the widespread political strikes witnessed last spring.
The divisions remain fairly clear also based on the comments, with trade unions opposing and employer organisations mostly supporting the revised proposal.
Pöysti warned in his comment that the proposal could jeopardise the impartiality and independence of the national conciliator. The proposal, he added, fails to provide sound justification for interfering in the freedom of labour markets through regulation and steering what ought to be a categorically impartial conciliation proceeding.
The economic considerations emphasised in the proposal as such are acceptable, according to him.
“Instead the question is can they steer negotiations and conciliation proceedings in particular solely on grounds of the law,” he said.
He also expressed his concern about the future of the labour market system in Finland.
Finnish lawmakers have traditionally allowed labour market organisations to independently thrash out agreements on issues of remuneration and employment terms. Deviating from the tradition in the manner outlined in the proposal can be regarded as a clearly novel and “somewhat peculiar” approach, he said, in part because it gives rise to concerns that the regulations could change whenever a new government takes office.
“There is a risk that each electoral term sets different objectives for conciliation, and that would not promote collective bargaining and labour market functioning in the way intended in international norms,” wrote Pöysti.
YLE on Monday reported that the Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff in Finland (Akava), along with many other employee organisations, is worried that the proposal would undermine the bargaining position of employees.
“The proposal ignores the fact that it runs afoul of the equality act. In addition, the bargaining autonomy of parties should not be restricted according to international treaties, such as ILO principles, which is a risk with the government proposal,” argued Ville Kopra, the head of labour market affairs at Akava.
Another common concern is that the proposal would complicate the effort to narrow the gender pay gap. The Ombudsman for Equality, for example, shot down the proposal as contradictory to goals of both the constitution and the equality act.
“The proposed regulation would not only cement the current pay gap between genders, but widen it further,” said Suvi Vilches, a senior inspector at the office of the Ombudsman for Equality.
Also Pöysti pointed to possible tensions between the proposal and the constitution, binding international treaties and EU regulation. It is therefore necessary, he argued, that the proposal is evaluated by the Parliament’s Constitutional Law Committee.
Aleksi Teivainen – HT
- Next Article Finland to scale back planning obligations in early-childhood education
Source: www.helsinkitimes.fi
