Download article in original language : Fi0108196fFI.DOC
In August 2001, the Finnish public prosecutor decided not to bring charges against the Finnish managers of Fujitsu-Siemens concerning intentional or negligent violation of the Cooperation Act's provisions on negotiations with workers' representatives. He could not find enough evidence that they could have known of the group management's aims to close down a computer factory in Finland before the personnel were informed of the decision in December 1999. Even though the criminal proceedings have now failed, a civil action brought by trade unions will still continue in court.
In August 2001, the public prosecutor decided not to bring charges against the Finnish managers of Fujitsu-Siemens concerning possible intentional or negligent violation of the provisions of the Cooperation Act on negotiations over measures affecting personnel (FI0002136F). This was the outcome of an investigation into whether the Cooperation Act had been violated in conjunction with the closure of the company's Finnish unit. The prosecutor could not find enough evidence that the Finnish managers could have known of the group management's plans to close down the computer factory in Finland before the personnel were informed of the decision. Background
In June 1999, the Japanese-owned Fujitsu and German-owned Siemens announced their intention to incorporate the greater part of their computer functions in Europe as Fujitsu Siemens Computers. The incorporation concerned the Finnish Fujitsu unit at Kilo and two German units, among others. After the new joint company started its activity, the employees of the Finnish unit were informed in December 1999, after a long period of uncertainty, of the commencement of a cooperation procedure with employee representatives on the subject of closing the plant. Even though the unit was profitable, the negotiations ended without result and all 450 employees were made redundant in April 2000.
According to the employees, the negotiations conducted were a pure formality and were commenced far too late, in contravention of the Cooperation Act. They insisted that the employees of the German Siemens plants had already been informed the previous summer that the Kilo plant was about to be closed down. However, the management in charge at Kilo at the time claimed that it did not have de facto knowledge of the decision before December 1999. After the redundancies took effect, the Ministry of Labour- and later also the employees - asked the police to undertake an investigation as to whether the Cooperation Act had been violated. In conjunction with the closure of the Kilo plant, it was decided that its production would be transferred to Augsburg in Germany.
Decision
The public prosecutor tried to find evidence as to whether the Cooperation Act had been violated. After a long period of consideration, he came to the conclusion that adequate evidence of a criminal offence could not be found. No charges were thus brought against the Finnish managers of the Kilo plant. In his verdict, the prosecutor noted that the Finnish managers did not know of the closure decision made by the Fujitsu-Siemens group management in Tokyo. According to evidence given to the hearing, the Finnish management informed the personnel immediately after they heard of the decision on 14 December 1999. There was no Finnish representation in the Fujitsu-Siemens group management, and the decision on the closure was made abroad.
According to the prosecutor's decision, the only circumstance in which Finnish law can be applied to a crime committed outside Finland against a Finn is if the crime could result in a prison sentence of over six months according to the Finnish legislation. Even if Fujitsu-Siemens had been guilty of violating the Finnish Cooperation Act, the company or its group management could not be charged in this case, because the maximum punishment could consist only of fines.
Civil proceeding still continues
The case is not closed yet, because the civil proceedings brought by nine unions in February 2001 are still being dealt with in court (FI0102177F). According to the unions, the Cooperation Act was methodically violated. The unions are demanding compensation of over FIM 50 million for violation of the Cooperation Act in connection with the closure of the plant.
The majority of the compensation claimants are members of the Metalworkers' Union (Metalliliitto), affiliated to the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (Suomen Ammattiliittojen Keskusjärjestö, SAK). Other claimants are members of the following affiliates of the Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees (Toimihenkilökeskusjärjestö, STTK): the Union of Technical Employees (Teknisten Liitto, TL); the Union of Salaried Employees in Industry (Teollisuustoimihenkilöiden Liitto, STL); and the Federation of Special Service and Clerical Employees (Erityisalojen Toimihenkilöliitto, ERTO). The remainder are members of the following affiliates of the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals (Akateemisten Toimihenkilöiden Keskusjärjestö, AKAVA): the Finnish Association of Graduates in Economics and Business Administration (Suomen Ekonomiliitto, SEFE); the Union of Professional Engineers in Finland (Insinööriliitto, IL); the Finnish Association of Graduate Engineers (Tekniikan Akateemiset, TEK); the Central Union of Special Branches within AKAVA (Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto, AEK); and the Association of Finnish Political Scientists (Valtiotieteilijöiden Liitto, SVAL).
Commentary
The closure of the Kilo plant in Finland may have been influenced by the fact that the redundancies were considerably cheaper and politically easier in Finland than in Germany. When the cooperation procedure between Fujitsu and Siemens started, the German IG Metall metalworkers' trade union immediately began to fear job cuts. The company considered closure of Padeborn, Germany, but gave up the idea - apparently because the compensation to long-term employees would have totalled several hundred thousand FIM per head. In Finland, the cost of the dismissals amounted only to the wages for the notice period of one to six months.
The legal proceedings in connection with the closure of the Kilo plant are still under way, despite the prosecutor's decision not to bring criminal charges. The criminal proceedings are not likely to be continued, because the potential penalties are not high enough to justify it. The case is turning into a purely civil one and the focus is now on the question of whether valid evidence of the moment of the factual decision making can be presented to the court.
It is arguably strange that the Finnish management did not know about the final closure decision before the group management decision in Japan, even though the German press speculated openly about the closure plans a long time earlier. If this really is the final truth, it seems that a foreign group management (especially if a non-EU head office is concerned) can neglect to inform interested parties of its aims concerning company restructuring. The purpose of the Cooperation Act is to guarantee that personnel have the chance to influence such decisions when something can still be done. This seems not to be the case under the present legislation, where foreign-based multinationals are concerned. (Juha Hietanen, Ministry of Labour)