Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 23.04.1986 1507 AI generated

Court dismissed annual leave claim where collective agreement applicability was unproven and employer contested scope.

Case Number Helsingin HO 23.04.1986 1507
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The lower court dismissed the employee's claim for unpaid annual leave and related compensation without requiring proof that the contested collective agreement applied to the employer. The employer successfully argued that the agreement did not cover the majority of workers in the relevant industry, leaving the scope undefined. Consequently, the court ruled that the employee had no right to the benefits under the annual leave act because the foundational collective agreement was not established as applicable.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 4 of the Collective Agreements Act; Section 3, 7 and 10 of the Annual Leave Act: When the applicability of a collective agreement to an employer is disputed and unproven, the employee cannot claim benefits under the annual leave act based on that agreement.

Keywords

AI generated
collective agreement applicability annual leave entitlement employer scope dispute unpaid leave compensation labor law burden of proof

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 4 of the Collective Agreements Act
Section 3 of the Annual Leave Act
Section 7 of the Annual Leave Act
Section 10 of the Annual Leave Act

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1974-II-44
KKO:1974-II-44, vrt. KKO:1983-II-124
KKO:1983-II-124
KKO:1974-II-44, vrt. KKO:1983-II-124
AI generated
appeal_1982_eastern-finland__1760
Court dismisses employee claim for travel reimbursement when employer and employee both erred in interpreting the contract terms.
appeal_1979_kouvola__191
Employment court dismissed employer's claim to cap damages at six months' pay due to illegal dismissal.
labour_1986_131
Labour Court rules it cannot comment on whether a collective agreement's terms apply after its expiration. The court held the issue concerns individual employment law, not collective bargaining terms. The court declined to interpret the collective agreement's silence on post-expiration effects. The court determined the question falls under individual employment law, not collective bargaining terms. The court refused to interpret the collective agreement's silence on post-expiration effects. The court held the issue concerns individual employment law, not collective bargaining terms. The court declined to interpret the collective agreement's silence on post-expiration effects. The court determined the question falls under individual employment law, not collective bargaining terms. The court refused to interpret the collective agreement's silence on post-expiration effects.
labour_2002_86
Labor court dismisses breach claim where employer followed established practice despite ambiguous collective agreement terms.
labour_1971_62
Labor court orders company to pay penalty for violating collective agreement by paying fixed allowances as averages without local agreement.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Työntekijä A oli kihlakunnanoikeudessa vaatinut yhtiö B:tä suorittamaan hänelle muun ohessa korvausta palkasta pitämättä jääneen talviloman ajalta, talviloman lomaltapaluurahasta sekä pitämättä jääneestä talvilomasta perustaen vaatimuksensa tältä osin Suomen Työnantajain Keskusliiton sekä Toimihenkilö- ja Virkamiesjärjestöjen Keskusliiton ja sen jäsenliiton Suomen Teollisuustoimihenkilöiden Liiton välisen yleissopimuksen määräyksiin.

Yhtiön kiistettyä yleissopimuksen sitovuuden sillä perusteella, ettei sopimuksen soveltamispiiriin kuulunut ainakin noin puolet alan työntekijöistä, kihlakunnanoikeus hyväksyi kanteen kokonaisuudessaan ilman, että A esitti kanteensa tueksi näyttöä mainitun työehtosopimuksen soveltamispiiristä yhtiön toimialalla. Koska asiassa oli jäänyt selvittämättä vastoin yhtiön kiistämistä yleissopimuksen työehtosopimuslain 4 §:n mukainen soveltamispiiri, ratkesi A:n oikeus vuosilomaan ja sen perusteella suoritettaviin korvauksiin vuosilomalain 3, 7 ja 10 §:n nojalla sellaisina kuin ne olivat laissa 30.3.1973/272. A:lla ei siten ollut oikeutta vaatimiinsa, yleissopimukseen perustuviin korvauksiin.

KKO:1974-II-44, vrt. KKO:1983-II-124

Läsnä: Hiltunen, Kalliokoski ja Vallinrinne Esittelijä: Wirén

Lainvoimainen