Tehy Head of Legal Services Kari Tiainen fact-checked the claims in the Ministry's press release on essential work legislation. It became apparent that the Ministry is spreading false information in its press release.
Claim by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment: The legislative proposal was drafted in a tripartite working group.
Fact: There was no tripartite drafting regarding emergency work. Even Senior Ministerial Adviser Nico Steiner from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment itself stated in the Helsingin Sanomat newspaper that "The emergency work provisions did not end up in the working group's proposal, but after the consultation round, the political side resolved that the relationship between emergency work and industrial action should be regulated."
The actual course of events is also revealed by the title of the government proposal draft that was sent out for consultations on 22 November 2024 after the tripartite drafting was complete: 'Government Proposal to the Parliament Regarding an Amendment to the Act on Mediation in Labour Disputes'. The government proposal draft does not make any mention of amending the emergency work provisions of section 19 of the Working Time Act. As such, unlike the Ministry is claiming, the proposal did not undergo tripartite drafting and was not sent out for consultation.
Claim by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment: The consulted parties were separately requested to review the emergency work provisions during the consultation round.
Fact: The legislative draft on which the Ministry requested statements did not include any proposed amendments to the emergency work provisions. The consulted parties were only asked for statements on "is it necessary to amend the regulations on emergency work, with regard to the legislative proposals, and if it is necessary, how?" This means that interested parties were asked to state their wishes for amending the emergency work provisions, i.e. their interest in changing the law. They were not consulted on any proposed amendments to the emergency work provisions because such amendments were not included and no one was aware of them existing. The actual course of the consultation process can be verified from the Lausuntopalvelu service (in Finnish), for example.
Claim by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment: In the draft submitted to the Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis, the amendments to the emergency work provisions were also included, but due to legislative technicalities, they were included in a different act than in the government proposal.
Fact: They were not included. On 17 February 2025, the Ministry submitted to the Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis a version (a public document which is available to anyone on request via the Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis, for example) in which the emergency work provisions were a new subsection introduced to section 8d of the Act on Mediation in Labour Disputes in which the grounds for emergency work would have remained the same as in section 19 of the Working Time Act during industrial action, and the subject matter of the emergency work provisions would not have been changed at all. In the version submitted to the Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis, the Ministry proposed the following provision:
"If the threat of a damaging consequence to life, health, property, the environment, animal welfare or national security due to an interruption in the operations defined in subsection 1 is immediate to such an extent that its occurrence cannot be prevented by means provided in this Act or by other reasonable means, the provisions of section 19 of the Working Time Act (872/2019) on requiring emergency work apply to the prevention of the damaging consequence."
This is completely different from the Ministry's proposal to the Parliament: "Amendment to the new subsection 1 of section 19 of the Working Time Act as included in the Government Proposal (proposed amendment in bold):"
"An employer may require an employee to perform emergency work when an unforeseeable event interrupts or seriously threatens to interrupt regular operations or to put life, health, property or the environment at risk. Emergency work may also be required if the threat of a damaging consequence to life, health, property, the environment, animal welfare or national security due to an interruption in the operations as defined in paragraphs 1–8 and 11 of subsection 1 of section 8d of the Act on Mediation in Labour Disputes (420/1962) is immediate to such an extent that its occurrence cannot be prevented by means provided in this Act or by other reasonable means."
Tehy Head of Legal Service Kari Tiainen states that this is an essential change to the content of the emergency work provisions. In the version submitted to the Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis, nothing would have changed in the legal scope of application of emergency work from the currently valid legislation, according to clear phrasing in the provisions. In the government proposal, the scope of application for emergency work will expand, according to clear phrasing in the provisions, so that the requirement for 'an unforeseeable event' as specified in the first sentence of paragraph 1 does not need to be followed in the case of industrial action. This is what is written in the legislative proposal, regardless of what is written in the justifications for it.
The government proposal also proposes amendments to the emergency work provisions (section 19 of the Working Time Act), even in the proposal title, unlike in the version that was submitted to the Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis. Paragraph 4 in the government proposal states the essential amendments outright and mentions that the grounds for emergency work will change.
The government proposal does not bring up the international norms that bind Finland regarding the working time protections of employees, such as protected rest periods and protection against overtime, which emergency work derogates from (Working Time Act section 19, subsection 2). Similarly, the proposal does not include the interpretation practice of international agreements regarding on which grounds it is allowed to derogate from the rest time provisions. Since the government proposal proposes an expanded application of emergency work, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment should have informed the Parliament of the international regulations. Such international regulations include, among others, the ILO Nursing Personnel Convention (149) and its article 6 on working time protection and weekly rest, and the ILO Convention Concerning the Application of the Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings (14). The updated European Social Charter and the provisions of its second article on protected rest periods should also have been mentioned. The now-proposed amendments to the Working Time Act would directly affect how the rights defined in the binding international agreements apply to employees who perform essential work during industrial action.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment quoted the statement of the Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis in the government proposal. The government proposal does not inform the Parliament that significant changes were made to the emergency work provisions compared to the paragraph reviewed by the Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis.
– A committee's right to receive information does not make up for this because the Constitution defines the Parliament's and a committee's respective rights to receive information as separate. In practice, these are different paragraphs in the Constitution. The matter should be openly brought up in the government proposal because the government proposal is the effective source of information on the proposal's grounds for the Parliament, says Tehy Head of Legal Services Kari Tiainen.
Claim by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment: The drafting progressed normally.
Fact: The drafting did not progress normally. What the Ministry considers to be 'normally progressing legislative drafting' results in a government proposal to the Parliament that does not mention 'gender' or 'equality' in any way, even though the instructions to perform gender impact assessment in legislative drafting are not new and these very clear instructions apply to the Ministry.
– If this is a result of legislative drafting that took a year and 'progressed normally,' should we be worried, asks Tehy Head of Legal Services Kari Tiainen.
Claim by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment: The content of the proposal for the emergency work provisions has not changed since being reviewed by the Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Fact: The content did change; this is a rather strange claim made under liability while in office. It is strange that the Ministry can boldly claim that the phrase "the provisions of section 19 of the Working Time Act (872/2019) on requiring emergency work apply" and the later proposed amendment to section 19 to include the phrase "Emergency work may also be required" are identical in terms of content.
– The outcome of Tehy's fact-checking is that the Ministry's press release contains several factual errors and does not hold water, says Kari Tiainen.
Tehy members can join in on the police report until 30 April 2025. Over 7,000 Tehy members have already joined the report.
Enquiries:
Tehy Head of Legal Services Kari Tiainen, [email protected], tel. +358 (0)40 5000 430
