Finland's Helsinki Administrative Court has ruled that Helsinki Prison, commonly known as Sörkka, unlawfully dismissed a long-serving fitness instructor. The prison lacked an exceptionally weighty reason for terminating the employee's contract, the court found.
The Prison's Case Unravels
The employer had accused the prison fitness instructor of breaching his official duties on multiple fronts. Allegations included bringing unauthorized items into the prison, establishing a pilates group, moving around prison workshops without permission, and allowing unauthorized outside individuals onto the prison grounds for the 'Sörkka's Strongest Man 2024' competition.
However, the Helsinki Administrative Court dismissed the majority of the prison's stated grounds for dismissal. A significant factor was that Sörkka Prison's own practices and rules were unclear at the time of the incidents in question.
Pilates Group for Cleaner Prisoners
Regarding the pilates group, the fitness instructor explained that it ended up including several representatives of organized crime simply because the group's session was held during the day. At that time, the only prisoners available to participate were so-called cleaner prisoners, who have work duties. The prison had claimed the body control group consisted entirely of organized crime representatives.
The initiative to establish the group had originally come from the central administration of the Criminal Sanctions Agency (Rise). The group managed to meet only about 50 times over one year before it was discontinued. Participant turnover was high.
The court did find that the fitness instructor should have understood the security risks associated with the group. He had failed to have the group's participants checked by the crime prevention team, acting contrary to relevant management and supervision regulations. However, the court stated that the errors related solely to the pilates group did not constitute an exceptionally weighty reason for dismissal on their own.
Uninvited Guests at a Strength Contest
During the 'Sörkka's Strongest Man' competition in 2024, outsiders were indeed allowed onto the prison grounds. The court, however, cleared the dismissed fitness instructor of responsibility for this breach.
Evidence presented in court revealed that the external party organizing the competition had brought its own assistants to help run the event. One of these assistants was a lawyer. The identities of the assistants only became clear just before the event, at which point the prison superintendent responsible for event security decided to let them in. The fitness instructor was not responsible for this decision.
Equipment Purchases Deemed Routine
Concerning the procurement of a football and a scale, the man also did not break any rules. Purchasing sports equipment for prisoners was part of his job description, and equipment bought by staff did not, according to the prison superintendent, require security screening.
The court's examination highlighted systemic issues in the prison's internal communication and rule clarity. For other allegations beyond the pilates group oversight, no problems were observed in the fitness instructor's conduct. The cumulative effect of the minor procedural misstep concerning the pilates group, against a backdrop of unclear guidelines, was insufficient to justify the severe measure of termination.
A Broader Context of Prison Employment
This case sheds light on the operational challenges within closed institutions. The ruling underscores the principle that disciplinary actions, especially dismissal, must be proportionate and based on clear, established rules known to the employee. The incident involving the competition reveals how security protocols can be strained by external events, with decision-making pressure falling on supervising officers in real-time.
The fitness instructor, a long-term employee, was ultimately dismissed for violations the court largely deemed unproven or not serious enough to warrant such action. The prison's inability to present coherent and clearly communicated protocols to its staff formed a central pillar of the court's decision. It points to a potential gap between high-level security directives from agencies like Rise and their practical, day-to-day implementation on the prison floor.
While the court acknowledged a lapse in judgment regarding the pilates group's participant vetting, it framed this within the context of an initiative encouraged by the agency's own central administration. The high turnover in the group, meeting only 50 times in a year, further painted a picture of an experimental rehabilitation effort rather than a grave, sustained security threat orchestrated by the employee.
The Question of Proportionality
The core legal question resolved was one of proportionality. Finnish labor law sets a high bar for dismissals, requiring 'exceptionally weighty reasons.' The court's meticulous breakdown of each allegation served to demonstrate that, even taken together, the instructor's actions—most of which were found to be within his remit or not his fault—did not meet this threshold. The ruling reinforces employee protections even within the unique and strict environment of a prison.
What remains is for the Helsinki Prison administration to review its internal guidelines and communication practices. The case also highlights the delicate balance prison staff must strike between facilitating rehabilitative activities, like sports and exercise, and maintaining rigid security controls. When rules are ambiguous, employees are left vulnerable, and institutions open themselves to legal challenge. The court's decision sends a clear message that the burden of clarity lies with the employer, especially when a person's livelihood is at stake.