Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 17.3.1998/3849:97 AI generated

Temporary work without payment does not constitute a TVL contract; meal allowance alone is insufficient compensation.

Case Number VakO 17.3.1998/3849:97
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 claimant's request for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act because no valid employment relationship existed. Although the employer provided only a meal allowance for temporary work lasting a few days, the court found this insufficient to establish the economic consideration required by the Act. Consequently, the accident was not deemed to occur during a covered employment relationship, and the decision was remitted to the insurer.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

TVL 1 § 1 momentti; TVL 1 § 2 momentti: A temporary task performed without remuneration, where the only benefit provided is a meal allowance, does not constitute the economic consideration required to establish an employment relationship under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and thus an accident occurring during such a task is not covered.

Keywords

AI generated
Workmen's Compensation Act temporary employment relationship economic consideration requirement meal allowance insufficiency remission to insurer

Cited Legislation

AI generated
TVL 1 § 1 momentti
TVL 1 § 2 momentti
AI generated
insurance_1979_8997-1978
Court held that an incidental family member assisting in forestry work was covered by work accident insurance.
insurance_1976_9208-1975
Insurance court denies work injury claim when employee lacks statutory insurance coverage at time of accident.
kko-precedent_1999_55
Supreme Court dismisses claim that spouse was employer's employee under accident insurance law due to lack of contract and consent.
kko-precedent_2000_93
Supreme Court holds injury during free time after event program ended is not a work accident under Act 4 § 1.
insurance_2001_9920-2000
Workplace injury during employer-organized activity counts as work-related injury for insurance coverage.

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

X oli ollut Y:n omistaman sikalan korjaustyössä ja tässä työssä vahingoittunut. Y:n ilmoituksen mukaan työsuhde oli ollut tilapäinen ja tarkoitus oli ollut tehdä työ valmiiksi muutamassa päivässä. Y:n mukaan palkkaa ei ollut maksettu, mutta X oli saanut syödäkseen. VakO katsoi, ettei pelkällä ateriaedulla ole sellaista taloudellista arvoa, jota voitaisiin pitää TVL:n 1 §:n 1 momentissa tarkoitettuna vastikkeena X:n suorittamasta työstä. Asiassa ei ollut esitetty selvitystä muunkaan vastikkeen suorittamisesta. X:n ei katsottu olleen tapaturman sattuessa ko. lainkohdan tarkoittamassa työsuhteessa. Tapaturmalautakunnan päätös kumottiin ja asia jätettiin vakuutusyhtiön antaman päätöksen varaan.

Jaosto:II Äänestys: 4-1