The Parliamentary Ombudsman considered a wage arrangement of the chairpersons of Finnish Defence Forces’ personnel organisations to be in violation of the legal principles of administration

Parliamentary Ombudsman Jari Råman has assessed the procedure of the Finnish Defence Forces where chairpersons of personnel organisations in the military sector have been paid wages while on leave of absence. The personnel organisations had returned the paid wages to the Defence Forces. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, this arrangement violated the principle of procedures being bound to purpose, which is a part of the legal principles of administration, and the requirement of the equal treatment of public officials.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman investigated the matter based on an article published in Ilta-Sanomat on 20 October 2024. The Defence Forces had granted three public officials leave of absence while they acted as chairpersons of military personnel organisations and paid the chairpersons wages during the leave of absence. The personnel organisations had returned the wages to the Defence Forces, including indirect wage costs.

The Ombudsman estimates that the primary purpose of the arrangement was to retain benefits related to military pension. This kind of arrangement had to be considered to be contrary to the principle of procedures being bound to purpose, which is a part of the legal principles of administration.

Information concerning the matter was requested from the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Command. The received reports could not convincingly lay out how the wage payment arrangement concerning the chairpersons of military personnel organisations contributes to the management of the tasks assigned to the Defence Forces under the Act on the Defence Forces. The Parliamentary Ombudsman agreed with the assessment made by the Ministry of Defence that it is not decisive whether the chairperson is still actively engaged in their military employment while managing their trusteeship tasks or whether they have an assignment in a wartime formation, which were justifications presented in the report by the Defence Command and in organisation-specific protocols.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman also found the Ministry of Finance’s view justified in that the procedure blurred the lines between paid and unpaid leave of absence. The Parliamentary Ombudsman assessed that the content of the wage arrangement partly matched the characteristics of paid leave of absence, even though it had been formulated as a separate contractual arrangement. Public officials on leave of absence had been paid wages that the personnel organisation had returned alongside indirect wage costs to the Defence Forces, which resulted in said public officials remaining within the scope of the military pension system.

In addition, the arrangement resulted in different treatment of the chairpersons compared to other public officials. The chairpersons retained their military pension benefits during the leave of absence, while other public officials in the Defence Forces who were employed by another employer during their leave of absence did not. The Parliamentary Ombudsman considered that there were no acceptable grounds for such exceptional treatment.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman has brought his view to the attention of the Defence Command. In addition, the Ombudsman considered it appropriate for the Ministry of Defence to take action in response to the matter, and the ministry was asked to inform the Parliamentary Ombudsman of subsequent measures by 2 October 2026.

Decision EOAK/5821/2024 is available (in Finnish) on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s website at www.oikeusasiamies.fi

Further information is available from the Principal Legal Adviser acting as head of division Kristian Holman, tel. +358 9 432 3368.