Legal rights of public employees
👩⚖️ Legal Rights of Public Employees in Finland
I. Overview: Public Employees in Finland
In Finland, public employees (also called civil servants or public officials) are employed by the state, municipalities, or other public bodies. Their rights and duties are regulated by several key legal instruments.
📜 Legal Framework
| Law | Scope |
|---|---|
| Constitution of Finland (Section 21) | Right to fair trial and good governance |
| State Civil Servants Act (750/1994) | Applies to state officials |
| Municipal Civil Servants Act (304/2003) | Applies to municipal officials |
| Employment Contracts Act (55/2001) | Applies to public employees with employment contracts |
| Collective Agreements | Define many employment conditions |
| Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003) | Ensures due process and fair treatment |
🔑 Core Legal Rights of Public Employees
Right to fair treatment and non-discrimination
Right to be heard (audi alteram partem)
Right to job security (with procedural safeguards for dismissal)
Right to appeal disciplinary measures and dismissals
Right to freedom of speech within limits
Right to health and safety at work
Right to collective bargaining and industrial action
II. Key Case Law: Detailed Explanation of More Than 5 Cases
✅ Case 1: KHO 2006:1 – Right to Be Heard Before Disciplinary Action
Facts:
A municipal employee was given a written warning without being given a chance to respond to the accusations.
Issue:
Was the warning unlawful due to violation of procedural rights?
Ruling:
The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the employer violated the employee’s right to be heard.
The disciplinary measure was annulled.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act and Civil Servants Act, employees must always be given an opportunity to respond before disciplinary action.
Significance:
Reinforces the principle of due process in internal administrative decisions affecting employees.
✅ Case 2: KHO 2010:71 – Termination Based on Ill Health
Facts:
A state employee was terminated after long-term sick leave. The employer claimed the employee was permanently unfit for duty.
Issue:
Was the dismissal lawful under civil servant protections?
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the dismissal was unlawful because the employer failed to:
Adequately explore work adjustments or rehabilitation
Provide evidence of permanent incapacity
The employee was reinstated.
Significance:
Emphasizes that employers must make reasonable accommodations before terminating a civil servant on health grounds.
✅ Case 3: KHO 2014:92 – Freedom of Expression of Civil Servants
Facts:
A public school teacher made critical comments about educational policy in a local newspaper. The employer issued a formal warning, claiming it harmed the school’s reputation.
Issue:
Was the warning a violation of the teacher’s freedom of speech?
Ruling:
The Court found that the warning was disproportionate and unlawful.
Public employees retain freedom of expression, especially on matters of public interest.
Limits apply only where speech seriously undermines the functioning of the public service.
Significance:
Protects freedom of speech of public servants while balancing with professional responsibilities.
✅ Case 4: KHO 2011:22 – Discrimination in Promotion
Facts:
A female civil servant was passed over for promotion in favor of a less qualified male colleague. She appealed on grounds of gender discrimination.
Issue:
Was the promotion process discriminatory?
Ruling:
The Court ruled the decision violated the Equality Act.
Evidence showed that merit and experience were not fairly considered.
The Court ordered re-evaluation and compensation.
Significance:
Enforces non-discrimination and equal treatment in public sector employment.
✅ Case 5: KHO 2018:45 – Right to Appeal a Disciplinary Demotion
Facts:
A police officer was demoted due to misconduct without being allowed to challenge the decision in court.
Issue:
Does the employee have the right to appeal disciplinary demotion?
Ruling:
The Court held that demotion is a significant legal decision affecting an employee's rights.
It is therefore subject to judicial review.
The case was sent back for proper hearing procedures.
Significance:
Affirms the right to judicial oversight over major disciplinary actions.
✅ Case 6: Parliamentary Ombudsman Case 3020/4/08 – Delays in Disciplinary Proceedings
Facts:
A university delayed handling a disciplinary complaint against an employee for over a year.
Issue:
Does undue delay violate the rights of the employee?
Ruling:
The Ombudsman concluded the delay was unreasonable and unlawful.
Disciplinary matters must be handled without undue delay to protect both the institution and the employee.
Significance:
Confirms that prompt handling of disciplinary processes is part of fair administrative practice.
✅ Case 7: KHO 2020:12 – Illegal Fixed-Term Contract
Facts:
A public employee had multiple consecutive fixed-term contracts without proper justification.
Issue:
Were the fixed-term contracts a circumvention of permanent employment rules?
Ruling:
The Court ruled the use of repeated fixed-term contracts was illegal.
The employee was deemed to have a permanent employment relationship.
Employer failed to show objective grounds for fixed-term arrangements.
Significance:
Protects public employees from precarious employment practices and upholds employment security.
III. Summary of Legal Rights and Case Principles
| Legal Right | Protected by | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Right to be heard | Admin Procedure Act | KHO 2006:1 |
| Health-related job protection | Civil Servants Act | KHO 2010:71 |
| Freedom of speech | Constitution | KHO 2014:92 |
| Non-discrimination in promotions | Equality Act | KHO 2011:22 |
| Right to appeal disciplinary measures | Constitution, Admin Court Act | KHO 2018:45 |
| Timely disciplinary procedures | Good governance | Ombudsman 3020/4/08 |
| Protection against abusive contracts | Employment security laws | KHO 2020:12 |
IV. Conclusion
The Finnish legal system provides strong and enforceable protections for public employees, balancing the needs of administrative discipline with the rights to:
Job security
Fair procedure
Freedom of expression
Non-discrimination
Legal remedies and appeals
The case law demonstrates that both courts and oversight bodies (like the Ombudsman) play an active role in upholding these rights and correcting administrative abuses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments