Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1997:114 AI generated

Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal; civil servants consenting to transfer lost dismissal pay rights.

Case Number KHO:1997:114
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal against the Education Board's decision denying severance pay to civil servants. The court found that by granting the rector's consent to transfer to municipal positions, the employees voluntarily agreed to deviate from their statutory dismissal notice period. Consequently, the court ruled they had no legal basis to claim compensation for the lost notice period.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Valtion virkamies L 46 § 5 mom; Civil servants who consent to a transfer to a different employer waive their right to severance pay based on the original dismissal notice period.

Keywords

AI generated
civil servant dismissal transfer consent severance pay waiver notice period deviation employment termination rights

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Valtion virkamies L 46 § 5 mom
AI generated
labour_2009_132
Labor court dismisses union claim that employer violated collective agreement by relocating driver during notice period.
labour_1974_85
Teachers transferred to municipal schools gained leave return pay rights under the general municipal employment agreement.
labour_2012_94
Labor court dismisses union claim that severance pay ends if employee joins same group company.
labour_1986_96
Labour court awards 90,000 marks to teacher dismissed without cause under collective agreement.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2021:9
Supreme Court dismisses dismissal claim because employer acted within reasonable time after learning of grounds. The employer had 3.5 months to terminate after learning of the grounds. The court found the delay reasonable given the circumstances. The employee's request for damages was rejected. The employer's actions were deemed compliant with the law. The decision upholds the employer's right to terminate. The employee failed to prove unreasonable delay. The court ruled in favor of the employer. The case concerns termination timing. The outcome was dismissal of the claim.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Opetusministeriö luovutti 2.6.1994 Turun terveydenhuoltooppilaitoksen ja Turun teknillisen oppilaitoksen ylläpitämisoikeuden Turun kaupungille 1.8.1994 lukien. Mainitusta ajankohdasta lukien kaikki oppilaitosten virat lakkautettiin. Ennen irtisanomista viranhaltijat olivat antaneet valtion oppilaitosten rehtoreille suostumuksensa tulla siirretyksi kaupungin virkaan. Turun terveydenhuolto-oppilaitoksen rehtori irtisanoi 28.6.1994 oppilaitoksen virkamiehet viroistaan ja Turun teknillisen oppilaitoksen johtokunnan puheenjohtaja irtisanoi 4.7.1994 oppilaitoksen virkamiehet viroistaan 1.8.1994 lukien. Opetushallitus päätöksellään 18.12.1995 hylkäsi muutoksenhakijoiden oikaisuvaatimuksen, saada irtisanomisajan palkkaa vastaava korvaus sillä perusteella, että he eivät olleet saaneet hyväkseen koko irtisanomisaikaa.

KHO hylkäsi oikaisuvaatimukseen annetusta päätöksestä tehdyn valituksen todeten muun ohella, että annettuaan valtion omistaman oppilaitoksen rehtoreille suostumuksen tulla siirretyksi kaupungin virkaan 1.8.1994 lukien viranhaltijat eivät enää olleet valtiotyönantajan käytettävissä. Antaessaan suostumuksensa tulla siirretyksi kaupungin virkaan viranhaltijat olivat suostuneet siihen, että voimassa olevasta irtisanomisajasta poiketaan. Heillä ei siten ollut oikeutta irtisanomisajan palkkaa vastaavaan korvaukseen.

Valtion virkamiesL 46 § 5 mom (755/86)