Court: Production bonuses were to be paid for a chief shop steward’s time off
TEXT ANTTI HYVÄRINEN
ILLUSTRATIONS ESKO KUMPUNEN
According to the Labour Court, the production bonus was to be paid to the chief shop steward also for the hours during which they were exempted from work to perform their duties as shop steward. However, the court found that the transfer of the chief shop steward to other duties was justified.
A member of the Industrial Union acting as a chief shop steward led to a change in their job duties and a reduction in their earnings. The Industrial Union filed a complaint regarding the matter with the Labour Court which issued its ruling in February 2026.
In 2022, an employer had not paid the chief shop steward production bonuses for the hours during which they were exempted from work to perform their duties as shop steward. The employer had failed to pay approximately 226 euros in bonuses for a period of just under nine months.
The employer paid the bonuses during the legal proceedings and believed that the case should not have been heard at the Labour Court. The employer claimed that the bonuses had not been negotiated in advance, which is a prerequisite for bringing the case before the Labour Court.
At the start of their term of office in 2021, the chief shop steward was granted four hours per week of time off for union duties. After about a year, the time off increased to ten hours.
At the end of 2022, the employer had transferred the chief shop steward to other duties for which no production bonuses or shift allowances are paid. The previous duties involved working two shifts; and the new position was daytime work.
The employer justified the change of work duties with the chief shop steward’s exempted time off making it difficult for the production line to operate. According to the employee, the arrangements with substitutes had been handled successfully.
The company-specific collective bargaining agreement concluded between the Industrial Union, Trade Union Pro and the company states that union representatives may not be transferred to lower-paying jobs or tasks of lesser priority.
The Industrial Union considered that this also constituted discrimination based on trade union activity.
THE COURT PARTIALLY SUSTAINED THE CLAIM
The Labour Court ruled that the unpaid production bonuses for the hours of time off could be addressed in court, as evidence presented by the Industrial Union showed that the matter had been raised during negotiations.
According to the court, the company had clearly violated the collective bargaining agreement, so the employer was required to pay a penalty of 2,000 euros to the Industrial Union. The company had already paid the production bonuses to the employee during the legal proceedings.
Regarding the transfer to other duties, the Labour Court found that the chief shop steward’s base salary remained unchanged in the new duties, and therefore the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement had not been violated. In addition, the court noted that the collective bargaining agreement did not contain a definition of “work of lesser priority,” nor had any negotiations taken place regarding such a definition.
According to the court, the company had clearly violated the collective bargaining agreement, so the employer was required to pay a penalty of 2,000 euros to the Industrial Union.
According to the Labour Court, the employer was able to rebut the presumption of discrimination that arose from the chief shop steward being transferred to other duties. According to the court, the transfer was based on the nature of the work duties and the requirements for performing the work.
Because the Industrial Union’s lawsuit was partially dismissed, the union was required to pay a portion of the company’s legal costs, approximately 12,000 euros.
The Industrial Union’s legal aid covers all costs arising from legal proceedings, so members face no financial risk if they are granted legal aid and a case goes to court.
