Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
KKO 4395/1997 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court dismisses claim for collective bargaining compensation because employee was a management representative not covered by the Act.

Numero d'incarto KKO 4395/1997
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Finlandia (FI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal regarding the lower court's rejection of a claim for compensation under the Act on Co-operation in Enterprises. The employee, who was a management representative, argued that the employer failed to negotiate before termination, while the employer claimed a written negotiation proposal was provided and minimum time was met. The court ruled that the Act applies only to employees, excluding management representatives whose employment matters fall outside the scope of the collective bargaining procedure.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Act on Co-operation in Enterprises; The Act on Co-operation in Enterprises applies only to employees and does not cover management representatives, thereby excluding them from the statutory obligation to negotiate and the right to compensation for failure to negotiate.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
Act on Co-operation in Enterprises management representative collective bargaining procedure termination compensation employee status negotiation obligation Supreme Court of Finland vizio di costruzione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Act on Co-operation in Enterprises
Generato dall'IA

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Tuotantopäällikkö A oli vaatinut työnantaja B:ltä yhteistoiminnasta yrityksissä annetun lain mukaista hyvitystä, koska B oli irtisanoessaan A:n taloudellisilla ja tuotannollisilla perusteilla jättänyt noudattamatta sanotussa laissa säädetyn neuvotteluvelvoitteen. B oli kiistänyt vaatimuksen sillä perusteella, että A:lle oli annettu kirjallinen neuvotteluesitys ja B oli neuvotellut laissa määrätyn vähimmäisajan ennen A:n irtisanomista. Hovioikeus hylkäsi kanteen, koska A ei ollut asemansa perusteella kuulunut lain tarkoittamaan henkilöstöön vaan yrityksen johdon edustajiin, joiden työsuhteisiin liittyvät asiat eivät kuuluneet yhteistoimintamenettelyn piiriin. Kysymys hovioikeuden menettelystä.