Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 25.1.1981/11989:79 AI generated

Insurance court dismissed claim that interviewers were employees because work was company-directed and paid.

Case Number VakO 25.1.1981/11989:79
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Insurance Court dismissed the applicant's claim that interviewers were employees of the company rather than independent contractors. The company directed the interview areas, provided materials and names, set the pay based on volume, and covered costs beyond standard benefits. The court ruled that the lack of a fixed schedule and inability to use substitute time did not negate the company's control over the work, establishing an employment relationship.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Insurance Act; Employment Protection Act: Where an entity directs the work area, provides materials, sets remuneration based on output, and covers specific costs, the lack of fixed hours or substitute time usage does not preclude a finding of an employment relationship.

Keywords

AI generated
employment relationship independent contractor company control remuneration basis insurance court work direction substitute time

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Insurance Act
Employment Protection Act
AI generated
insurance_1969_6085-1968
Contractor not an employee; no labor law applies to independent service agreement dispute.
labour_2001_35
Labor court ruled a security guard on service fee was in an employment relationship entitled to vacation pay.
insurance_1984_1028-1984
Finnish Insurance Court dismissed claim that home-based LVI technician worked under employment contract.
insurance_1986_3450-1985
Insurance court ruled translator was an employee subject to TEL, increasing pension benefits based on earnings.
appeal_1979_turku__942
Appeal dismissed; court upheld lower court's decision on criminal liability based on statutory interpretation.

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

Haastattelijan katsottiin olleen siinä määrin yhtiön johdon ja valvonnan alainen, että kysymyksessä oli TEL:n piiriin kuuluva työsuhde. Yhtiö oli määrännyt haastattelualueen ja antanut materiaalin sekä haastateltavien nimet tai määrätyt haastattelukohteet. Palkka perustui haastattelujen määrään. Vuosilomakorvauksen ja sosiaaliturvamaksujen lisäksi yhtiö suoritti haastatteluista johtuvat erilaiset kulut. Muita haastattelutehtäviä ei ollut rajoitettu, mutta sijaista ei saanut käyttää. Eläkelautakunnan päätöstä ei muutettu. V -jaosto