Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115) - Finland (Ratification: 1978)

The Committee notes the information provided regarding effect given to Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of the Convention, and references made to new legislation adopted giving further effect to the Convention, as well as the detailed information provided regarding regulatory guides for different types of work involving possible exposure to radiation. The Committee further notes the observations from the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) included in the Government’s report.

Articles 3(1) and 6(1) of the Convention. Effective protection of workers in the light of available knowledge; maximum permissible doses. The Committee notes from the SAK’s comments that the dose limits for work-related exposure to radiation defined by the Radiation and Nuclear Authority (STUK) should be stricter on the basis of current research data. Noting that the Government does not address these concerns in its report, the Committee asks the Government to respond to the SAK’s comments in its next report.

Article 12. Medical examinations. The Committee notes from the SAK’s comments that health inspections are not carried out on all workers because of the use of temporary and subcontracted workers. Noting that the Government does not address these concerns in its report, the Committee asks the Government to respond to the SAK’s comments in its next report.

Article 14. Alternative employment or other measures offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure is medically inadvisable. The Committee notes the Government’s response that, according to the Employment Accidents Insurance Act (608/1948) compensation for injury or illness covers medical treatment, daily allowances, accident pension and handicap allowance, including any relevant supplements, compensation for costs and loss of income arising from physical therapy. However, with reference to its previous comments the Committee would again like to draw the Government’s attention to what is stated in paragraph 32 of the 1992 general observation under the Convention, and the fact that this provision also relates to situations before any occupational disease has been declared but after a determination that continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiation has been found to be medically inadvisable. In such cases, paragraph 32 makes it clear that every effort must be made to provide the workers concerned with suitable alternative employment, or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on measures taken to ensure that workers are offered alternative employment or to maintain their income when it has been determined that it is medically inadvisable for them to continue their work, including information on the situation of workers who have been employed for less than three years.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes from the comments by the SAK that the occupational health-care provisions are not supervised and that no statistics are available on the implementation of statutory health inspections, or on negligence and related sanctions. The Committee requests the Government to indicate measures taken to address the comments raised by the SAK and to provide a general appreciation on the application of the Convention including, for instance, extracts from inspection reports as well as statistical information on the number and outcome of such inspections.