The right of workers to be paid when they are prevented from working is a very hot and even inflammatory topic in labour market policy right now, in the spring-winter of 2024. We have read in the news how, for example, a number of paper industry operators have, as a result of industrial action by the ACP, shut down their own operations and immediately suspended the payment of their workers' wages, even though the workers in these companies are not themselves involved in the industrial action. The companies have argued, on the basis of the law on employment contracts, that they are not obliged to pay wages in the present case. This interpretation has given rise to an active debate for and against, and at the time of writing this article the debate is not yet abating. This issue will be returned to at the end of the article.
You are paid for the work you do
The general principle for the payment of wages is that you are paid for the work you do. If the work is not done or cannot be done, the salary is not paid. This rule, derived from general principles of contract law, is so self-evident that it has not been considered necessary to enshrine it in our labour law.
As we well know, the rule is not without exception. The principle of worker protection in labour law has extended the employer's obligation to pay wages, for example, in the event of sickness of the worker or in situations where work is interrupted (1) for reasons attributable to the employer, (2) because of fire, an exceptional natural event or other cause beyond the control of the employer and the worker, and (3) because of industrial action by other workers. These three situations are examined below.
Obligation to pay wages when prevented from working for reasons attributable to the employer
According to Chapter 2, Section 12.1 of the Employment Contracts Act, the employer is obliged to pay the employee full wages if the employee has been available to the employer under the contract without having to work for reasons attributable to the employer, unless otherwise agreed.
According to the preamble to this provision, the reasons for the prevention of work on the part of the employer are not only. Immediately reasons arising from the employer and his/her activities, including those Indirect reasons that the employer could eliminate without substantial difficulty. Direct causes, such as an interruption of work due to the employer's failure to order raw materials and the lack of raw materials, are directly attributable to the employer and the employer's negligence. On the other hand, the employer must also be prepared for work stoppages due to various indirect causes. If, for example, a junior lawyer in a law firm has a computer that is several years old and at the end of its life cycle that breaks down and work is prevented as a result, it is probably clear that the employer could have foreseen the situation quite easily and could have replaced the machinery with reasonable effort and without difficulty. Payment of wages cannot be suspended for this reason.
With regard to the ”full salary” referred to in the provision, the law does not provide any further definition of how the salary to be paid is to be determined. The starting point is the employee's normal remuneration under the employment contract and/or collective agreement. There is no time limit on the duration of the obligation to pay wages, i.e. at least in principle the obligation to pay wages can continue as long as the employee is prevented from working. It is also possible for the employer to suspend the obligation to pay wages by laying off the worker. If the obstacle is prolonged, it is not impossible that the conditions for dismissal are met.
Obligation to pay wages in the event of fire, exceptional occurrence of nature or similar causes
Chapter 2, Section 12.2 of the Employment Contracts Act deals with situations where work is prevented for reasons beyond the control of the parties - i.e. the employer and the employee - due to an external event.
The first sentence of the paragraph states that in situations where a worker is prevented from working because of fire, an exceptional natural event or other similar cause beyond his control or that of the employer, the worker is entitled to be paid for the period of the prevention, up to a maximum of 14 days. In practice, these situations are quite close to those commonly known in contract law, the so-called force majeure situations that are at least at some level surprising and clearly independent of the employer and the employee. In addition to the situations specifically mentioned in the provision, accidents or other unforeseeable events caused by third parties may fall within the scope of the ”other like” situations referred to in the provision.
In KKO 1986-II-92, lorry drivers who had been self-employed had suspended timber transport because of a dispute between the Finnish Trucking Association and the Forest Industry Transport Suppliers concerning the basic fees for the transport of timber by lorry, which had led to a shortage of raw materials and prevented the sawmill workers from working at a sawmill dependent on transport. This was a case of force majeure within the meaning of the Employment Contracts Act, and the workers were therefore entitled to receive their wages for the period during which they were prevented from working.
Obligation to pay wages due to industrial action by other workers
Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 12.2, Chapter 2 of the Employment Contracts Act, in situations where the prevention of work is due to industrial action by other employees, independent of the parties to the employment contract, and which has no connection with his or her terms and conditions of employment or working conditions, the employee is entitled to be paid. for up to seven days. The reverse is also possible: if the industrial action of other workers is linked to the working conditions of the person prevented from working, there is no obligation to pay wages and wages can be suspended immediately.
The industrial action must come from from other workers. If, for example, an employers' association imposes a lockout that prevents work, this would primarily be a case of force majeure, as discussed above, which would be subject to a longer 14-day payment obligation.
Secondly, the decisive factor for the obligation to pay wages is whether the industrial action is sufficient. Dependency relationship the working conditions or terms and conditions of employment of a worker who is absent from work. If there is a dependency, the payment of wages can be suspended immediately. The Supreme Court has handed down a number of judgments on the subject, which should provide general guidelines for assessing the existence of a dependency. On the other hand, the case law of the Supreme Court on the assessment of dependency mainly dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, when the old Employment Contracts Act was in force, and to a very different era for the labour market, so that the relevance of the decisions in the 2020s may well be questioned. On the basis of these rulings, the case law suggests that there would be a relationship of dependency at least in situations where industrial action has also aimed at improving the working conditions of unemployed workers or where industrial action has actually contributed to improving the working conditions of unemployed workers.
Finally
As stated at the beginning, the starting point is that you are only paid for the work you do. The obligation to pay wages in the event of inability to work is therefore always an exception to this general rule.
In the current industrial action situation, the paper industry operators have argued that the ACP's industrial action has, firstly, caused a halt in the transport of raw materials and products to the mills and prevented work in the mills. Secondly, they have argued that the stoppage of work has been linked to the ACP industrial action, the declared aim of which is to defending the working life rights of every worker and the government's labour law reforms. When a dependency on the working conditions and working conditions of factory workers is deemed to exist, the payment of wages is suspended immediately and not after seven days. In this simplified assessment of the situation, it is possible that the paper industry operators' interpretation of the situation is correct. Ultimately, however, it is a question of proof of the link and the interdependence between the industrial action and the prevention of work.
Based on the information that has been made public, the interpretation of the content of Chapter 2, Section 12.2 of the Employment Contracts Act by the paper industry will be submitted to the court. If so, this issue will also be resolved at a later stage - possibly all the way to the Supreme Court.
Amos Law Office provides legal services on employment contracts and employment relationships. Please contact us if you need help
Article written by lawyer OTM Santeri Valkamo. You can always call him free of charge on 010 299 5090. You can check our price list Here.