Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 3.12.1998/8725:97 AI generated

Insurance court denied unemployment benefits when employer bonus was prorated to cover the employment termination period.

Case Number VakO 3.12.1998/8725:97
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 claim for unemployment benefits covering the period from December 1, 1995, to January 4, 1996. The applicant received a termination bonus of 20,000 marks, which the employer argued was a one-time incentive rather than regular income, and the court prorated this amount to the specific end-of-year period. Consequently, the court ruled that the bonus constituted an economic advantage received from the employer, thereby excluding the applicant from receiving unemployment benefits for that duration.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Unemployment Act; Social Insurance Act: When a termination bonus is prorated to cover the period of employment termination, the recipient is deemed to have received an economic advantage from the employer and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits during that prorated period.

Keywords

AI generated
termination bonus unemployment benefits economic advantage proration of income Social Insurance Act employment termination income exclusion

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Unemployment Act
Social Insurance Act

Cited Case Law

AI generated
D:4046:98
AI generated
labour_1984_136
Labor court allows severance pay when employer terminates sick employee after permanent disability pension granted.
insurance_2006_10193-2004
Court allows unemployment benefits by ruling that active job seeking outside the employment office is a valid reason for absence.
insurance_1990_410-1990
Part-time teacher denied unemployment benefits for period after contract ended due to lack of layoff.
labour_2010_56
Labor court dismissed union claim that sick pay applies to recurrent illness if first episode lacked pay due to short tenure.
insurance_1998_290-1998
Unemployment benefit denied due to six-month absence without valid reason and failure to meet work requirement.

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:n työsuhde oli päättynyt 30.11.1995. Työsuhteen päättymisen yhteydessä X:lle maksettu kannustuspalkkio 20.000 markkaa ajalta 1.7.-30.11.1995 on jaksotettu vakiintuneena pidettävän palkan perusteella ajalle 1.12.1995-4.1.1996. Työnantajan mukaan kannustuspalkkio ei ollut X:n vakiintunutta ansiota ja palkkio perustui siihen, että X:n työsuhde oli päättymässä ja työnantaja halusi motivoida irtisanottavat henkilöt tekemään työtä. VakO katsoi, että kannustuspalkkion maksaminen johtui työsuhteen päättymisestä eikä X:llä ollut oikeutta työttömyyspäivärahaan siltä ajalta, jolle työnantajalta saatu taloudellinen etuus voidaan jaksottaa. X:n saama kannustuspalkkio ei kuulunut hänen vakiintuneena pidettävään palkkatuloonsa. Työttömyysturvalautakunnan päätöstä ei muutettu. Vrt. D:4046:98

Jaosto:V Äänestys: