Often, someone who defends his rights is labeled as a difficult person, even a “bad loser”.
Municipalities employ thousands of workers each year, so they exercise significant public power. According to Article 125 of the Constitution, the legal protection of applicants requires that merits should be compared equally. The relevant legislation is unambiguous and, in addition, the people who make decisions in the municipalities also have lawyers at their disposal to ensure the legality of the decisions. That's why even one official appointment annulled in a court of law raises suspicions about the wrong motives of the decision-maker.
When the applicant feels that the selection process or the official's decision is incorrect or against the law, he or she first has the opportunity to make a request for correction to the competent body mentioned in the decision. The rectification request and the decision given to it can be seen on the relevant website and are available for all municipal residents to see. Typically, the subject matter of the rectification claim is presented in a text prepared by the organization's officials, which naturally supports the decision made. In contrast, the viewpoints and documents of those defending their rights can only be seen by bothering to attend during office hours.
If the rectification request is not accepted, the applicant can appeal the matter to the administrative court, which can reject, change or cancel the decision made. However, getting a decision takes at least one year, at worst even two years. Often, someone who defends his rights is labeled as a difficult person, even a “bad loser”. The situation is particularly difficult if the applicant is already an employee of the organization in question or has invoked the Equality or Equality Act. For the above-mentioned reasons and the fear of being caught and having a difficult career, many people do not intervene in illegal activities.
“
Many do not intervene in illegal activities.
Even if the administrative court overturns the decision and the position has to be reopened, the situation does not improve from the appellant's point of view. Typically, the candidates for a new office election are a person who was previously appointed to the office and had merit while handling it during the legal process, as well as a person who also demanded a correction from the previous election. In the new election, the person previously appointed has received a clear advantage, while the person who filed the complaint has gained the reputation of a troublesome person in the eyes of the decision-makers.
Administrative law the decision often has no sanctions for those who made the illegal decision, which is problematic. Instead, the incumbent has to apply for the position again, and the loser of the illegal office election is in a weaker position than in the first process. This inevitably erodes the trust of the municipal residents in public officials and in political decision-making. In order to eliminate illegal recruitment, should organizations be given a tangible sanction in clear cases?
Taina Autti
professor, Helsinki
The reader's opinions are speeches written by HS readers, selected and edited by the HS editorial staff. You can leave an opinion piece or familiarize yourself with the principles of writing at the address www.hs.fi/kiryotamielipidekeisuis/.
#Reader39s #Opinion #Illegal #appointments #municipalities #lot #damage
