Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 26.11.1981/10014:80 AI generated

Court ruled that irregular seasonal security work does not constitute a continuous employment relationship under the Act on Old Age Pensions.

Case Number VakO 26.11.1981/10014:80
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court partially reversed the pension board's decision regarding a security guard's eligibility for old age benefits. While the guard worked irregularly between 1973 and 1978, the board initially denied benefits due to the lack of continuous employment. The court distinguished this case from a similar one involving a different guard, noting that the first guard's fragmented work schedule failed to meet the statutory threshold for a continuous relationship, whereas the second guard's more consistent pattern warranted a change in the board's ruling.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Act on Old Age Pensions; The Act on Old Age Pensions does not apply to individuals whose employment periods are fragmented and do not constitute a continuous relationship of at least one month.

Keywords

AI generated
Act on Old Age Pensions continuous employment relationship seasonal security work fragmented work schedule pension eligibility criteria

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Act on Old Age Pensions
AI generated
insurance_1973_3854-1972
Insurance court dismissed claim for separate employment contracts due to continuous factory dismantling work.
insurance_1984_3793-1984
Court ruled fragmented work periods constitute one continuous employment relationship for pension eligibility.
insurance_1986_3450-1985
Insurance court ruled translator was an employee subject to TEL, increasing pension benefits based on earnings.
insurance_1984_98-1984
Insurance court dismissed appeal against pension board decision regarding employee work days for pension eligibility.
insurance_1984_1028-1984
Finnish Insurance Court dismissed claim that home-based LVI technician worked under employment contract.

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

Stadionin urheilukilpailuissa vahtimestarina vuosina 1973-1978 toimineen henkilön katsottiin olleen työsuhteessa stadionia ylläpitäneeseen säätiöön, mutta koska hänellä ei ollut ollut velvollisuutta olla säätiön käytössä sillä tavoin, että työskentelyjaksot olisivat muodostaneet vähintään yhden kuukauden yhdenjaksoisen työsuhteen, häneen ei kuitenkaan ollut sovellettava TEL:a. Vuosittain toukokesäkuussa työskennelleistä noin 200 vahtimestarista 30 40 oli toiminut vahtimestarina säännöllisesti viikottain ja myös kysymyksessä oleva vahtimestari useina vuosina kolme kertaa viikossa. Eläkelautakunnan päätöstä ei muutettu. II -jaosto

D:11757:80

Samoin jäähallin vahtimestarin osalta, joka 1971-1979 oli työskennellyt syyskuusta kesäkuuhun keskimäärin kaksi kertaa viikossa. Eläkelautakunnan päätöstä muutettiin. II -jaosto