Legal proceedings The District Court dismissed the charges against the Chief of Police and the High Commissioner in a case in which police were suspected of being discriminated against in recruitment because of their illness

According to the law, it was not shown that the accused had discriminated against the Criminal Commission on the basis of, for example, their state of health or disability.

Oulu the district court has dismissed the charges of two police officers in a case in which the criminal commission was suspected of having been discriminated against because of his medical condition in the spring of 2019. At the same time, the district court also dismissed the criminal commission’s claims.

The case was related to the filling of a temporary job at the Oulu Police Department, which was open at the River Valley Monitoring and Alert Unit. The Criminal Commissioner applied for a post for which no one was ultimately elected. There were three applicants.

It was up to the court to decide whether the severely disabled High Commissioner, who had applied for the post, had been placed at a disadvantage without good reason because he had not been elected to the post.

The accused were the retired Oulu Police Chief and the Chief Commissioner, who were responsible for recruitment. They were charged with employment discrimination and intentional or, in the alternative, negligent breach of duty.

According to the charges, the defendants knew the criminal commission was suffering from motoneuron disease FALS.

Of justice According to the applicant, it is common ground that the Commissioner for Crime met the required eligibility criteria. In addition, he was by far the most experienced and deserving of the applicants.

The reason for not filling the vacancy was that none of the applicants had up-to-date experience in the management of surveillance and alert operations, which was considered a prerequisite for the task. This was a four-month period, so the orientation was not considered appropriate. The matter was decided by the Chief of Police on the proposal of the High Commissioner.

The Chief Commissioner accused and the Chief of Staff working in the Monitoring and Alarm Unit shared the responsibilities of the vacancy. The chief of staff did not need any familiarization.

According to the law, the timeliness of the experience may have been required for the successful performance of the task and was sufficiently highlighted in the call for applications. The CRC’s experience in the surveillance and alert sector, on the other hand, was long overdue.

“The deadline has been short and placed in the summer holiday season, when we have had to do other things. Given the short duration of the task, it is plausible that a ready-made factor was needed that did not require induction, ”the judgment states.

The District Court considers that it has not been established that the Criminal Commissioner was placed at a disadvantage, for example, on the basis of his state of health or disability.

Of justice It has also failed to show that the police officers discriminated against the Criminal Commission on the basis of, inter alia, their state of health or disability, or otherwise failed to act in a balanced manner by not appointing him to a fixed-term employment relationship.

“The appointment process and the decision-making process concerning it have been carried out properly,” the court states.

Already in 2018, the Ostrobothnian District Court dealt with the discrimination case of the same Criminal Prosecutor’s Office. Last year, the district court sentenced the Finnish state to 15,000 euros in compensation, but the verdict is not final.


Next Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *