Ombudsman for Equality

Comparison of merits

According to the Finnish Equality Act, a comparison of merits must be carried out whenever applicants include both men and women. The comparison of merits assesses applicants’ qualifications, previous work experience, and any qualities, knowledge and skills that could prove useful in the job. Merits and qualities are assessed on the basis of applications. The merits included in the comparison must be unambiguously and objectively demonstrable. Only merits that have accumulated by the application deadline and that were known to the decision-maker during the selection process can be included. Additional reports produced after the decision was made cannot usually be taken into account.

Suitability, aptitude, ability and other subjective personal attributes of applicants cannot be included in merits under Section 8(1)(1) of the Finnish Equality Act. However, they can be used as grounds for employers’ decisions and may constitute justifications for choosing a less qualified candidate for a position.

Merits are evaluated in the light of the position in question and on the basis of the selection criteria that the employer has established before advertising each position (Finnish Government proposal, HE 57/1985). As regards appointments to public office, the principles set out in Section 125 of the Constitution of Finland must also be taken into account. The general qualifications required for appointments to public office are skill, ability and proven civic merit. Applicants also have to meet any special competence requirements that may be prescribed by acts or decrees.

Employers have the right – without being guilty of discrimination under the Finnish Equality Act – to assess and emphasise the merits of applicants in any way they consider the most suitable for finding the best candidate for a position (Finnish Supreme Court, 2005:24; Finnish Supreme Court, 1996:141). The merits of individuals should therefore be principally assessed relative to the priorities of the employer in question. However, any weighting chosen by employers must, when assessed objectively, be justified considering the nature of the position in question, and it must not be arbitrary.

As long as the advertised competence requirements are met, higher education is not necessarily considered an extra merit. The content of studies and their relevance to the position in question is more important (Finnish Supreme Administrative Court, 1989-A-38; Finnish Supreme Administrative Court, 1989-A-32). As regards work experience, the precedent established by case law states that longer work experience, even if by many years, is not necessarily considered an extra merit. The difference between two candidates’ work experience must be considerable for this to be a factor (Finnish Supreme Administrative Court, 1989-A-40). Experience amounting to a certain number of years is deemed necessary for gaining the required competence for specific positions. The number of years required varies from one position to the next. As regards content, experience from other positions may be considered just as relevant as experience gained working in a very similar position to the one being advertised.