Salary regulation in civil service law
Key Legal Framework (Finland)
Before the cases, a brief outline of the legal framework governing civil service salary regulation in Finland:
Civil servants (virkamiehet) have their service relationships, salary scales, benefits etc governed by laws (for example, the State Civil Service Act, Municipal Civil Servants Act), regulations, collective agreements, and in some cases application of constitutional rights (e.g. equality, non‑discrimination, property, fundamental rights).
While some salaries and benefits are strictly prescribed by law or regulation, others are affected by collective bargaining, and certain allowances or supplements may be discretionary or performance/position linked.
Disputes may arise regarding interpretation of salary grade, allowances, supplements, collective agreements, or whether a person is bound by particular salary rules, whether salary falls under civil service status or employment status, etc.
Leading Case Law
Here are several important cases/decisions that shed light on how Finnish courts have regulated salary issues for civil service / public service / equality etc. I’ll try to detail more than four.
Case A: Kajanan & Tuomaala v. Finland (2000)
Facts: Two persons who were justices at a Court of Appeal claimed that they were entitled to a higher salary grade than what was applied. They disagreed with the decision of the Chief Secretary of the Court of Appeal, who declined to assign them to the higher salary grade. They also argued that they should have had access to legal recourse (a notice of appeal etc.). Because of their status (not members of a union in this situation) they were not bound by the collective bargaining contract, and hence could not use the Labour Court for their claim.
Legal Issues:
Interpretation of a collective bargaining contract on civil servants’ salaries: whether it applied to them.
Whether non‑union members (civil servants) have access to judicial review for salary disputes.
Whether the denial of appeal violated equality or other rights under the constitutional law / Convention rights.
Holding: The Supreme Administrative Court (as described) eventually examined their claim. It rejected their claim on the merits (i.e. found they were not entitled to the higher salary grade). The justification included that the collective contract did not bind them (non‑members), so the salary grade in question was not a legal obligation in their case.
Significance:
This case shows that collective agreements do not automatically create enforceable salary rights for all civil servants; membership in a union or being bound by the specific agreement matters.
It also shows the divide between what collective bargaining can determine and what is legally enforceable.
There is also a procedural aspect: legal competence of reviewing bodies, and what courts are able or willing to do when disputes over salary grades within civil service arise.
Case B: Vilho Eskelinen & Others v. Finland (2007, ECtHR)
Facts: A group of Finnish civil servants / police officers worked in a remote area (Sonkajärvi). Under an older collective agreement, they had a “remote‑area allowance” (or similar supplement). Subsequently, that allowance was replaced by a “cold‑area allowance” (with different calculations), leading to reduced pay in some respects. Later, administrative changes merged personnel duty districts, resulting in some civil servants losing parts of their allowances or having changed commuting burdens etc. They claimed that this was a reduction of salary/benefits (loss of acquired rights) and that they had been promised compensation or wage supplements under past practice.
Legal Issues:
Whether changes in collective agreements or administrative/duty station changes can withdraw or reduce previously granted salary components (allowances or supplements) that had become part of salary.
Whether there is a legal (or constitutional / contractual) obligation to maintain or compensate for “acquired advantages” (past supplements etc.).
Whether failure to provide individual wage supplements, commuting cost compensation etc. as had been done in analogous past cases violates equality or legitimate expectation.
Holding: The ECtHR found that the Finnish authorities had denied an effective remedy and that the loss of supplements without adequate compensation or process violated the rights of the civil servants. The state was held liable under the European Convention for failing to protect their acquired wage rights.
Significance:
Reinforces that salary components which have become habitual or have been treated as part of the employment / service relationship may generate expectation / acquired rights, which cannot be removed arbitrarily.
Also shows that Finnish law (and the Convention) protects the stability of salary/benefits once they become established under practice.
Commutes / duty station changes which affect salary require legal basis and compensation if past practice or agreement gives rise to expectation.
Case C: Pay Equity / Gender Pay Discrimination Cases (various, Nordic / Finland)
These are perhaps less strictly “civil service salary regulation” in the sense of statutes for civil servants, but very relevant for understanding how salary in public/civil service is regulated in practice, particularly in equal treatment / non‑discrimination.
One recent case (from 2022–2024) involved a woman working in the fire department in Helsinki, comparing her pay with men in similar positions (senior fire inspector, senior control planner). She claimed pay differential; the courts examined whether the work was equal or of equal value, whether the collective agreement classification justified difference, etc. The district court (administrative court) found that the comparator positions were equal in value, so collective agreements alone couldn’t justify pay differential; the employer was found liable for pay discrimination.
Another decision (HD 2024:9) concerned time frames for adjusting established pay inequalities between first line nurses whose work was of equal value; whether steps taken by employers (in certain years) were sufficient to meet legal requirement of impartial treatment (i.e. removing pay disparities). The employer was found not to have breached the requirement fully, given that they had eventually started taking steps.
Earlier, in early 2000s and 2005 and 2009, there were Supreme Court or Supreme Administrative Court cases in which employees (in the public sector) claimed gender discrimination in salary categories. The jurisprudence established how burden of proof shifts (once a pay disparity is shown, employer must justify it with objective reasons) and what counts as legitimate justification (differences in duties, seniority, qualification etc.).
Significance: These cases show that even in public / civil service, salary regulation must conform to equality law; collective agreement categories etc can’t be a shield for discriminatory pay. They also show judicial willingness to examine job content, responsibility etc, not just job titles or categories in salary tables.
Case D: “Principle of Continuity of Civil Service Law in Connection with a Transfer of Undertaking” – Supreme Court Finland (2020)
Facts: A municipal civil servant was dismissed for production / reorganisation grounds. Meanwhile, the public utility where she worked was transferred (privatised) to a private company. After legal proceedings, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled the termination was unlawful. Meanwhile, she had been employed by the transferee as an employee (non‑civil service status) in certain part‑time or limited duties. She argued that her civil service should be considered continuous (per the Municipal Civil Servants Act) and her rights (including salary, benefits etc) preserved as though no termination had occurred (or as if civil servant status persisted).
Legal Issues:
Under what conditions civil service law continues (“principle of continuity”) when an undertaking is transferred.
Whether the transferee (private company) inherits salary obligations or civil service benefits.
Whether the person can claim the same salary / terms as civil servant had she not been terminated.
Holding: The Finnish Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal decision which had held that civil service status / rights continued automatically. The Supreme Court held that in the particular circumstances, an employment relationship had not been established between the transferee and the unlawfully dismissed civil servant. Thus, the continuity in civil service law did not enforce full salary / service status rights in this case.
Significance:
Emphasises that the principle of continuity has legal limits; transferring of undertaking doesn’t always carry all civil service rights forward.
Salary regulation (or more broadly service rights) may not be preserved in all structural changes; there must be legal, factual basis for the transferred contract etc.
It clarifies scope of civil service law as distinct from ordinary employment law in certain situations of privatisation or structural reorganisation.
Case E: Finnish Supreme Administrative Court: Pay Differential Manager Cases / Public Institution Managers
Facts: A case from Rovaniemi municipality: a female development manager compared her pay with two male managers (security manager, culture manager). She argued that pay differential was unjustified. The comparison included examining nature of duties, responsibility, experience. The court found that differences in duties were significant and that the comparator positions were not sufficiently similar to constitute equal value.
Another case: culture manager vs teaching post etc, where overtime payments etc were considered; whether pay differential justified by professional experience, job differences.
Legal Issues:
What constitutes “comparable work” or “work of equal value” for pay discrimination purposes.
Whether collective agreement categories / pay grades are permissible basis of differential.
To what extent performance, experience, work content etc must be weighed.
Holdings: The courts generally examine carefully the job descriptions, responsibilities, required competencies, working conditions, etc. If the differences in job content / responsibilities / seniority etc are significant, differential pay may be justified. But if a job is equal in value (even if differently titled), discriminatory pay cannot be defended merely by reference to collective categories or tradition.
Significance: Shows salary regulation in civil / municipal public service is not only about what the law/regulation says, but how courts interpret equality law and non‑discrimination; that salary law/regulation interacts with equality and collective bargaining; also that courts regulate implicit biases via demanding justification beyond mere classification.
Case F: Constitutional / Legislative Review of Police Pension Calculation (Estonia example, but instructive)
While this is Estonian (not Finnish), it's instructive for the kind of legal issues around salary/pension regulation for public service. For example, in Estonia a law (Police and Border Guard Act) had a provision requiring that calculation of a police officer’s superannuated pension be based on the most favourable salary rate from the last five years. A legal challenge examined whether that provision (in a certain version) was constitutional: whether police officers were entitled under the constitution to the most favourable salary from among the last five years, when pension is awarded.
Legal Issues: Fundamental rights, legitimate expectation, whether law “fixes” rights clearly enough; whether retrospective – whether law requires that pension must use best salary; whether constitutional standard (e.g. equality, property, trust in law) is met.
Outcome: The Court found that certain version of the provision was unconstitutional (because it did not give this entitlement clearly / was not compatible with constitutional right to property / trust in law) and so ameliorated or invalidated that part.
Relevance: Though this is not Finnish, it shows common issues in civil service salary regulation: how pension or post‑service salary related rights are regulated; how laws prescribing salary / benefits must meet constitutional standards; how courts will review whether the law gives enough certainty and fairness.
Key Principles & Doctrinal Themes Emerged from These Cases
From the above cases, we can extract several key principles about how salary regulation in civil service / public service is treated in Finnish law (and in Nordic context), especially as shaped by case law:
| Principle | What it means / How courts enforce it |
|---|---|
| Acquired wage rights / expectation | If a salary component (allowance, individual wage supplement etc.) has become habitual or contractual, or is part of collective agreement / past practice, civil servants may have an expectation that it continues, or that a reduction cannot be effected without justification or compensation. (e.g. remote area allowance / wage supplements in Eskelinen case) |
| Scope of collective agreements | Collective agreements play a major role, but they do not automatically bind non‑union members or govern everything. Courts examine whether the employee is bound by the agreement or not, and whether the agreement creates enforceable legal obligations. |
| Principle of equal treatment / non‑discrimination | Salary regulation must also respect equality law, especially regarding gender, job content, seniority, duties. Differential salaries require objective, lawful justification; same or equal value work must be paid equally. |
| Statutory clarity and legal authority | Regulations / laws that assign salary scales, allowances, variable pay etc must clearly authorize such payments; courts may invalidate or refuse to apply salary rules / supplements if they are not provided by law or if there is no legal basis. |
| Continuity / status maintenance | When structural changes (e.g. transfer of undertaking, privatisation) occur, civil service law may provide for continuity of status / rights, but that is not absolute. Whether salary is preserved or transferred depends on factual, legal circumstances and precise statutory provisions. |
| Legitimate expectations / protection under constitutional law / human rights | Civil service law and salary regulation are subject to constitutional norms (equality, property, legal certainty), and to European human rights law (e.g. right to effective remedy) when salary / benefit reductions or lost allowances arise. Courts will ensure that changes are not arbitrary, that individuals have recourse. |
Some Open Questions / Areas of Tension
What counts as “acquired” in salary or allowance terms? How much history or practice is needed before a supplement becomes immune to later removal?
The boundary between what salary regulation happens by collective agreement versus what must happen by statute / law. This determines what is enforceable.
Handling of structural changes (privatization etc): To what extent are salary / benefit rights inherited / preserved?
Balancing administrative cost / budgetary concerns vs rights of civil servants to stable salary / benefit entitlements.
The role of comparative / equal‑value assessment in non‑discrimination cases: how to measure “value of work” robustly.
RELATED Blog
0 comments