Supervision of berry pickers in employment relationships: employers do not monitor actual working hours

As a result of the legislative amendment, forest berry pickers from third countries worked as seasonal workers last year. Inspections carried out by the occupational safety and health authority revealed major shortcomings in the implementation of the terms of employment. The inspected employers did not monitor working hours and driving trips, even though they had the means for this. This also made it difficult to monitor the correctness of payment of wages. 

During the 2025 berry picking season, the occupational safety and health authority carried out a total of 20 visits to pickers’ bases during which workers were interviewed. Based on these visits, an extensive inspection was launched at 15 companies was after the picking season to supervise pay and working hours on the basis of documents. The inspections are partly still in progress, so the number of observed negligences is not yet known. This media release, on the other hand, presents the qualitative observations made by inspectors during inspections. Not every company operating in the sector was inspected, so the observations do not necessarily indicate the situation in the entire berry picking sector.

Recorded working hours did not correspond to the inspectors’ observations

The inspections revealed contradictions between the hour records presented by the employer and what workers said and what the inspector observed at the pickers’ base.

It was common that the work was recorded every day as starting on the hour and ending so that the working hours were exactly 8 hours. The inspectors did not find it credible that a picking site could be found every day so that the work always starts exactly on the hour.

Compensation in accordance with the collective agreement not paid for car travel

Many companies had agreed that a driver would receive a fixed daily compensation for either one or two driving hours, regardless of the actual driving time. Drivers are also berry pickers. Their overtime hours were neither recorded nor compensated, even though the driving time was on top of their eight-hour picking time. 

If the journey to the picking site exceeds 80 kilometres, the pickers must be paid compensation for the travel time. The inspectors are not aware of anyone being paid compensation for this. Based on the workers’ interviews, a picking site may have been up to 200-300 kilometres from the base. 

Employer failed to monitor the accuracy of entries

Incorrect entries may also be based on cultural factors, says Senior Officer Merja Laakkonen from the Finnish Supervisory Agency’s Occupational Safety and Health Department.

“If the workers have been explicitly trained to believe that the duration of the working day must not exceed eight hours, this is recorded regardless of the number of hours worked. If the employer says that the driving distance may not exceed 80 kilometres, the pickers do not say that they had to drive 200 kilometres to find the berries. This raises the question of whether workers understand why these numbers are being monitored and what it means for their pay,” Laakkonen says.

Employers could have monitored the accuracy of the data, for example by checking the kilometre reading on the car’s odometer and recording the pickers’ departure and return times. However, these means were not used by the supervised companies.

“Employers said that the amounts reported are based on trust, and they cannot monitor the matter. In reality, there are means for this,” says Laakkonen.

According to the authorities, the workers left their base early in the morning and returned late in the evening, as in previous years.

“It is clear that either work is performed for more than eight hours a day or the driving distances are considerable - or both,” says Laakkonen.

When working time records are unreliable, the correctness of contract pricing cannot be verified either.

Working hour sheets altered afterwards 

Doubt was also cast on the reliability of the working time records obtained during the inspections by the fact that a large number of changes had been made to these afterwards.

“Usually, each carload of pickers records their working hours in their working hour sheets. Afterwards, notes have been glued on these timesheets on top of working times and new working hours had been written on these,” Laakkonen explains. 

Many ambiguities and a wide range of practices in payment of wages

A large number of inconsistencies were observed between the working time records and payroll records for both pickers and support staff at the companies inspected.

A wide range of practices have also been observed in the payment of wages. For example, berry pickers were in some cases paid an advance in Finland, and the actual payment of wages only took place in Thailand. This meant that only one payslip was issued for the entire period.

In some cases, a Finnish company reported pay to the Incomes Register but did not pay the worker. Instead, the money went through a Thai company.

According to the Collective agreement for rural industries, the final salary must be paid before a worker’s departure if the employer has been informed at least two weeks before the agreed end of an employment relationship that the worker’s flight to their home country will depart within five working days of the end of the employment relationship. 

“This was not realised at least at the sites I inspected. The wages were only paid to the worker’s account after they had returned to their home country. However, I do not know how much it matters to the worker, whether the wages are paid on the day of departure or after this. In practice, the possibilities of obtaining justice if there are ambiguities in the payment of wages are likely to be just as poor either way,” Laakkonen says. 

Insufficient resources reserved for supervisors

During inspections, occupational safety and health inspectors got the impression that at least some of the employers have made an effort to manage matters correctly - especially those who have joined the Federation of Agricultural Employers.

"Even so, actual implementation is still lacking. It seems that some have not understood that completing the employer’s obligations will require more supervisory resources from companies than prior to the enactment of the Berry Act,” Laakkonen says.

Supervision of the rights of seasonal workers challenging

It is not easy to guarantee that the rights of seasonal workers are implemented. Workers may have a willingness to agree to very poor conditions, as the pay is or appears to be better than in their country of origin.

“It is nearly impossible for an inspector to intervene if a worker does not provide an explanation about their actual situation. The worker may only find out the truth after returning home, which makes it difficult for them to seek justice. We are currently developing ways to help employees report problems to the occupational safety and health authority as early on in a situation as possible,” says Laakkonen.

More information:
Senior Officer Merja Laakkonen
+358 295 255 953, [email protected]
Finnish Supervisory Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Department

Press release 26 June 2025: Supervision of wild berry picking: occupational safety and health authority is prepared to investigate pickers’ status