Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 31.10.1991/799:90 AI generated

Insurance court ruled that severance pay did not extend employment duration to meet pension law minimums.

Case Number VakO 31.10.1991/799:90
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Insurance Court modified the Pension Board's decision regarding an employee whose employment ended on January 29, 1988. The employee argued that severance pay for two months extended the employment period, but the court found this did not constitute factual continued work. Consequently, the employment duration did not reach the one-month minimum required by pension laws to fall under the TEL scheme.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Pension Act; Employment Protection Act: Severance pay constitutes a monetary benefit but does not extend the factual duration of employment for pension eligibility purposes unless accompanied by continued work.

Keywords

AI generated
severance pay duration employment period calculation pension eligibility threshold factual continued work TEL scheme coverage severance pay definition employment termination timing

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Pension Act
Employment Protection Act
AI generated
insurance_2007_2468-2005
Insurance court dismissed appeal; employment contract termination date determined by agreement, not severance payment.
insurance_2007_1860-2006
Court dismissed appeal; pension end date is last salary payment date, excluding annual leave pay.
insurance_2005_2961-2004
Court dismissed claim that 12-month notice period counts as employment under pension law beyond statutory six months.
insurance_2017_4614-2015
Insurance Court allows final settlement payments earned before termination to count for pension accrual.
insurance_1969_4284-1968
Insurance court dismissed pension claim adjustment due to employee's prior sick leave period exceeding seven months.

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 oli ollut yrityksen työssä 31.12.1987-29.1.1988, jona päivänä yrityksen toiminta oli päättynyt. Työntekijälle palkkaturvalain nojalla irtisanomisajan palkkana kahdelta kuukaudelta suoritetun korvauksen ei voitu katsoa pidentäneen työsuhteen kestoa siten, että sen olisi voitu katsoa jatkuneen tosiasiallista työskentelyä pidemmän ajan. Näin ollen työsuhde ei ollut kestänyt työntekijäin eläkelaissa säädettyä vähintään kuukauden aikaa eikä se siten kuulunut TEL:n piiriin. Eläkelautakunnan päätöstä muutettiin. (Äänestys 5-2) Laajennettu jaosto