Pam Magazine 17/13: The court decision on language skills supplements makes conflict resolution easier

– Could this be a start for something bigger? It's great to see the employees win sometimes, says one of the salespeople to whom their employer, the fashion chain Seppälä Oy, must pay the unpaid language skills supplements retroactively due to the Labour Court’s decision. The Labour Court gave the decision on October 17^th. The sums sentenced to be paid vary from approximately €300 to close to €2,800.

The salesperson pleased with the ruling is surprised that the court had to be consulted for an interpretation of such a clear stipulation in the collective agreement. It wasn't the first time, but it was a win: PAM had previously lost two disputes on language skills supplements.

Liisa Aro, the PAM lawyer acting on behalf of the employees in the case, says that the language skills supplement defined in the collective agreement in the commercial sector has caused enough conflict to create a problem. In different companies, the meanings of “ordinary customer service” and using the language “almost daily” have been questioned. For example, in at least some of the S Group regional cooperatives the policy has been that working as a cashier does not require language skills, so there is no need to pay a language skills supplement. Based on the feedback to the editors and the discussions in the member network, this is a common way of thinking.

Ismo Karstinen, the PAM union official for South-East Finland, says that there are negotiations ongoing in several large chains. There is a lot of tourism in the area, and in Seppälä, for example, the portion of customers who speak a foreign language is approximately 40 per cent, or more during high season.

– People have been waiting for this decision. It'll make resolving conflicts easier, he says.

The processing of the dispute at the Seppälä in Lappeenranta started from Karstinen's desk. He thanks the chain's chief shop steward Pirjo Kärki and the employees who were ready to fight for their rights for the cooperation leading to the win.

However, neither Aro nor Karstinen believe that the ruling would remove the problem with the language skills supplement. Both emphasise that situations need to be resolved case by case.

At least it was now clarified that the stipulation of the collective agreement is not limited to certain types of businesses.

– It isn't really significant whether the shop is a “self-service shop” or not, if the employees must actually use a foreign language when serving the customers almost daily, says Liisa Aro.

In the case of Seppälä, the claim of self-service itself seems paradoxical, because the chain's customer service concept requires personal service, and compliance with the concept is also monitored. How can you leave a “positive impression” on customers who speak a foreign language or even present them with different options for outfits with nothing more than hand gestures?

The salespeople at Lappeenranta could present strong evidence for the court on their use of the English language, because they had kept records of service situations for a long time. Among other things, the notebooks included finding a certain type of product for the customer – in English.

Aro encourages salespersons to go on keeping similar records in case of disputes.

– The records were significant in supporting the plaintiffs' statement, she says. She mentions a previous language skills supplement case that was lost, where there was only the statement of one employee without any evidence to support it.

Now that people everywhere speak several languages and the population is diverse, has the language skills supplement become an old-fashioned tradition?

– The language skills supplement is still a valid stipulation of the collective agreement, states Aro plainly.

– The employer cannot determine who gets it and who doesn't; only what people do in their work counts.

Tiina Ritala

Labour Court

Purpose: Solving disputes related to the interpretation of collective agreements.

Appeals: The decisions cannot be appealed.

Members: Represent both employee and employer organisations; one member and the president do not represent either.