PAM stands up for its members: Court victory means over €40,000 in compensation to employee and a large bill for the employer

Being a member of Service Union United PAM has its advantages. This was proven by a case where a union member working in the security sector received help after being unfairly dismissed.

The dispute, which was handled by the Helsinki Court of Appeal, ended favourably for the member, with the employer being ordered to pay over €40,000 in compensation. Additionally, the employer was required to cover over €11,000 in legal and other costs.

Dismissed for being a few minutes late

With PAM’s support, the employee sought compensation in court for wrongful dismissal. The dismissal occurred after the employer claimed the employee had neglected their duties, including being a few minutes late to work.

However, PAM believed that the true reason behind the dismissal was the employer’s desire to get rid of the employee, which is an illegal motive under the law. PAM also suspected that the employee’s health condition played a role, which would constitute discriminatory grounds.

According to PAM, the employer had acted wrongly by not addressing the lateness and other alleged issues within a reasonable time, as required by the Employment Contracts Act. For example, one instance of lateness cited by the employer occurred five months before the hearing that led to the dismissal. Furthermore, some instances of lateness used in the employer’s arguments dated back several years.

—If an employee is neglecting their duties or making mistakes, the employer must bring these issues to the employee’s attention soon after they happen, so the employee has a chance to correct them. After a long time has passed, it’s not always possible to rely on these issues as grounds, explains Arja Pohjola, Legal Affairs Manager at PAM.

Pohjola stresses that when an employee is dismissed, the grounds for the dismissal must be valid, and the reasons must always be proper and weighty.

—In addition, if an employee’s health condition prevents them from performing the duties agreed upon in the employment contract, the employer is required to first adjust the duties or explore the possibility of offering the employee another role before proceeding with dismissal. This did not happen in this case.

Court of Appeal increased compensation due to the employer’s conduct in the dismissal

The employee had already won the dispute with PAM’s help in the District Court, where the employer was ordered to pay compensation. However, the employer was not satisfied with the decision and appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal amended the ruling and increased the compensation to the employee for the unlawful termination. One reason for the increase was that the employer’s actions during the dismissal were deemed improper and insulting to the employee. Additionally, the court found that the employer had not explored the possibility of transferring the employee to another position, as required by law.

Text: Minna Räsänen