Employment or contract /KKO 2008:99 precedent
Law Office Lindblad assisted Ari H. in the matter
T and H have signed a contract to do structural constructions in T’s house and its outbuilding. The question was, if the contractual relationship was, however, to be regarded as employment relationship considering the facts in negotiations and other issues relating to carrying out the contract.
Ismo T had the actual possibility to direct and control Ari H’s work, because he has been on the construction site daily. Because Ismo T has told he has overseen the progress of the construction and given advice how to proceed, he had in fact supervised Ari H’s performance. Ismo T had been responsible for all materials needed and paid tool compensation to Ari H according to the regulations of Collective Labor Contracts. These facts back up the conclusion that Ari H has actually worked under supervision and direction of Ismo and Kaisa T.
The moderate hourly charge, 14,40 €, indicated other things than working as an entrepreneur. Offering the contract without VAT , working with tax deduction card and negotiation about exemption from pension payment backed significantly up the conclusion that it was not about a contract but employment relationship.
Because of these facts there is no reason for compensation according to the cause of action.