Occupational Safety Offences In Finland
Occupational Safety Offences in Finland – Overview
Legal Basis:
Occupational Safety and Health Act (Työturvallisuuslaki 738/2002)
Employers must ensure the safety and health of employees at work.
Finnish Criminal Code, Section 47–48
Criminal liability arises when failure to comply with occupational safety regulations endangers life or health.
Punishable by fines or imprisonment depending on severity.
Key Principles:
Duty to provide safe working conditions and adequate training.
Employers must assess risks, implement safeguards, and supervise compliance.
Severe negligence causing serious injury or death can result in criminal charges.
Both corporate and individual liability can apply.
Case 1: Supreme Court of Finland 2005: KKO 2005:45 – Construction Site Fatality
Facts:
Worker fell from scaffolding due to inadequate safety harnesses.
Employer failed to provide proper equipment or supervision.
Legal Principles:
Employers have strict duty of care under Occupational Safety Act.
Negligence leading to death constitutes gross occupational safety violation.
Outcome:
Employer convicted of negligent endangerment of life; sentenced to 12 months imprisonment (suspended).
Compensation awarded to the victim’s family.
Significance:
Highlights criminal liability for failure to provide basic safety equipment.
Case 2: District Court of Helsinki 2008: R 08/31 – Chemical Exposure Injury
Facts:
Employees exposed to toxic chemicals due to lack of protective gear; one suffered permanent lung damage.
Legal Principles:
Employers must provide personal protective equipment (PPE) and training.
Negligence causing serious health damage constitutes a criminal occupational safety offense.
Outcome:
Employer convicted; fined €50,000 and ordered to implement safety reforms.
Significance:
Shows courts hold employers accountable for chronic health hazards.
Case 3: Court of Appeal of Finland 2011: R 11/44 – Machinery Accident
Facts:
Worker’s hand was crushed in an unguarded industrial press.
Employer failed to install required safety guards.
Legal Principles:
Machinery safety regulations are mandatory under law.
Negligent failure to safeguard equipment = criminal liability.
Outcome:
Employer convicted of negligent endangerment; sentenced to 9 months imprisonment (partly suspended).
Victim compensated for permanent disability.
Significance:
Reinforces that compliance with machinery safety regulations is legally enforced.
Case 4: Supreme Court of Finland 2014: KKO 2014:27 – Fire Safety Negligence
Facts:
Fire broke out in a factory; evacuation plan was absent, resulting in injuries.
Legal Principles:
Employers must implement emergency preparedness measures.
Lack of fire safety planning constitutes criminal negligence under occupational safety law.
Outcome:
Employer convicted; penalty: €70,000 fine, mandatory implementation of fire safety protocols.
Significance:
Demonstrates importance of preventive planning in occupational safety obligations.
Case 5: District Court of Finland 2016: R 16/12 – Repetitive Stress Injury
Facts:
Employees developed repetitive strain injuries due to prolonged improper workstation ergonomics.
Employer ignored complaints and failed to adapt workstations.
Legal Principles:
Duty extends to long-term health hazards, not only immediate injuries.
Failure to prevent foreseeable workplace illness is punishable.
Outcome:
Employer fined €40,000; ordered to redesign workstations and provide training.
Significance:
Shows occupational safety law covers chronic, non-acute injuries.
Case 6: Court of Appeal of Finland 2018: R 18/21 – Contractor Liability
Facts:
Subcontractor employees suffered electric shock due to uninspected wiring.
Primary contractor failed to ensure subcontractor compliance with safety standards.
Legal Principles:
Employers and contractors share liability for occupational safety.
Oversight negligence is a criminal offense if it endangers life.
Outcome:
Contractor convicted of negligent occupational safety violation; fined €60,000.
Subcontractor also fined.
Significance:
Emphasizes that companies cannot delegate responsibility to avoid liability.
Case 7: Supreme Court of Finland 2020: KKO 2020:14 – Fatal Slip in Icy Conditions
Facts:
Employee slipped and died on factory premises due to icy outdoor pathways.
Employer had failed to apply proper anti-slip measures.
Legal Principles:
Employers must address environmental risks in workplace, including seasonal hazards.
Death due to neglect constitutes criminal liability.
Outcome:
Employer convicted of gross negligence under occupational safety law; imprisonment 10 months (suspended).
Compensation awarded to family.
Significance:
Extends occupational safety obligations to environmental and seasonal hazards.
Key Principles Illustrated by These Cases
Duty of Care: Employers must ensure a safe working environment.
Preventive Measures: PPE, machinery guards, fire safety, ergonomic adjustments are legally required.
Chronic and Acute Hazards: Liability extends to both immediate accidents and long-term injuries.
Corporate and Individual Responsibility: Both employers and contractors can be held criminally liable.
Criminal Consequences: Fines, suspended or active imprisonment, and compensation to victims or families.
Foreseeable Risk: Failure to anticipate and mitigate obvious hazards triggers liability.
These cases illustrate how Finnish courts actively enforce occupational safety laws, holding employers accountable for both negligent and reckless practices that endanger workers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments