The Supreme Court outlined what is sufficient time for salary harmonization.
Supreme In its recent preliminary ruling, the court (KKO) resolved the long-running salary dispute in favor of the paramedic.
As a result, the paramedic did not receive compensation of almost 40,000 euros for the wage loss, which the district court and the court of appeals had ordered the hospital district to pay him.
The paramedic worked for the hospital district ten years ago, when paramedic staff from the private sector were transferred there during the transfer of the business as so-called old employees with former employment benefits.
The hospital district began to comply with the municipal employment and collective agreement for all paramedics, and the salary was also determined uniformly.
However, it appeared that, for example, one paramedic who came to the house received an additional salary known as a fixed supplement or recruitment supplement of around 390 euros per month, and the other paramedic received correspondingly 240 euros.
Paramedic took the case to the district court of Lapland, where he did well. The court obliged the hospital district to pay nearly 40,000 euros in wage damages, because according to the court, the hospital district's procedure was inconsistent with the equal treatment principle of the Employment Contracts Act.
The District Court held that when the hospital district had not taken any harmonization measures during the two years, but had allowed the unequal treatment to continue until 2019 without intervening, it had violated the Employment Contracts Act.
The hospital district appealed to the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal, which did not change anything from the district court's decision.
KKO examined the question of whether the hospital district has complied with the equal treatment requirement of the Employment Contracts Act. For about five years, it had paid the paramedics a lower salary than the paramedics who transferred to its service after the sale of the store and did work of equal value, and had not eliminated the salary difference during that time.
The handing over of the store was an acceptable reason for the wage differentials to arise, but the employer still has to take measures to eliminate the wage differentials within a reasonable time, according to the KKO.
It found out in what time the district had begun to harmonize salaries. Concrete measures, i.e. the harmonization plan, were approved in the summer of 2016, and after that negotiations began on wage increases that reduced the differences. The district started implementing the actual program from 2019.
“The hospital district's effort to eliminate wage differences through negotiations that take place during the official and collective agreement periods has been an understandable procedure considering the limited financial resources of the hospital district,” it stated.
According to it, a reasonable harmonization period is always case-specific.
The district did not get the salary differences removed in five and a half years, which could indicate negligence, but on the other hand, the harmonization program was credible, KKO said.
Therefore, the measures aimed at harmonizing the district during that time were sufficient and the district did not neglect its duty. Thus, it was also not liable for damages and the paramedic lost the compensation promised by the lower courts.
#Wages #paramedic #paid #worse #colleagues #years #court #approved #actions
