Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 27.8.1998/11097:97 AI generated

Continuation of vacation leave without prior agreement requires new application and one-year continuous service.

Case Number VakO 27.8.1998/11097:97
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 for vacation pay extension from December 1996 to May 1997. Although the applicant argued the leave was originally agreed to cover this period, the court ruled it constituted a new application. The court found the applicant ineligible because they lacked the required one-year continuous service with the same employer before the new period began.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s. 10 of the Vacation Act 1996; Vacation leave continuation without explicit agreement in the original contract is treated as a new application, requiring the employee to meet all eligibility criteria, including one year of continuous service with the same employer, for the extended period.

Keywords

AI generated
vacation leave continuation new application requirement continuous service period employment eligibility criteria Insurance Court decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 10 of the Vacation Act 1996
AI generated
insurance_2000_10905-1999
Court dismissed unemployment benefit claim where alternating leave did not count as employment under the Unemployment Security Act.
labour_2000_40
Union rep's dismissal upheld for repeated duty breaches despite prior warnings under collective agreement.
labour_2001_64
Labor court dismisses dismissal claim where two absences were not combined due to prior warning practices.
labour_1980_139
Labor court ruled collective agreement applies based on job quality, not employer practice or salary type.
labour_2000_25
Labor court orders employer to reinstate employee or pay damages for wrongful dismissal due to alcohol incident.

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

Vaikka A:n vuorotteluvapaata ajalla 12.8.-21.12.1996 koskevassa vuorottelusopimuksessa ei ollut mainintaa vuorotteluvapaan jatkumisesta ajalla 22.12.1996-31.5.1997, A väitti, että vuorotteluvapaan oli jo alunperin sovittu kestävän 31.5.1997 saakka. Vakuutusoikeus katsoi kuitenkin, että A:n vuorotteluvapaahakemus ajalle 22.12.1996-31.5.1997 tuli käsitellä uutena hakemuksena. Tämän vuoksi ja koska A ei ollut ennen vuorotteluvapaan alkamista eli ennen 22.12.1996 ollut töissä eikä palvelussuhteessa samaan työnantajaan yhdenjaksoisesti vähintään vuoden aikaa, ei A:lla ollut oikeutta vuorottelukorvaukseen ajalta 22.12.1996-31.5.1997. Työttömyysturvalautakunnan päätöstä ei muutettu.

Jaosto:VIII Äänestys: