Handling of disciplinary matters and rectification requests by the board of examiners

These Guidelines of Metropolia University of Applied Sciences concerning the rectification of course performance, disciplinary matters and the Board of Examiners (“Guidelines”) describe the procedures and principles applied by Metropolia University of Applied Sciences Ltd (“Metropolia”) to the aforementioned, as well as describing the composition of the Board of Examiners, the matters included in its remit and the manner in which cases are brought before and processed by the Board of Examiners. 

These Guidelines were approved by the decision of the President and CEO of Metropolia on 17 June 2025, replacing the earlier Guidelines for Handling Disciplinary Matters. 

These Guidelines entered into force on 1 August 2025, as of which date they will be applicable. If a pending case has occurred before the entry into force of these guidelines, it will be processed in accordance with the previous guidelines. 

In addition to these Guidelines, Metropolia’s operations are steered by: 

• Rules of Procedure of Metropolia University of Applied Sciences
• Degree Regulations of Metropolia University of Applied Sciences
• Study Guidelines of Metropolia University of Applied Sciences
• applicable legislation, particularly the Universities of Applied Sciences Act (932/2014)
• general ethical principles and the complementary ethical guidelines specific to each professional field.
• Metropolia also applies the procedural guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK), which is appointed by the Ministry of Education and Culture, concerning responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. 

All of Metropolia’s activities are based on our strategy and mutually defined values. Our Code of Conduct, which is derived from our values, defines the rules that each and every one of us at Metropolia must follow. Metropolia’s value base consists of the following:

• Towards a sustainable future
• With an orientation on solution
• With competence renewal
• With a human touch

In addition to these values, Metropolia is committed to the guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK) on responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct, as well as to making sure that induction in sound research practices and the guidance and teaching of research ethics are part of its curriculum.

Metropolia University of Applied Sciences takes unethical practices and misconduct seriously. Unethical actions, such as fabrication, falsification, misappropriation and plagiarism, constitute a violation of the ethical norms of teaching and research as well as the law. Moreover, such actions do not advance a student’s learning process. 

Metropolia aims to prevent all disciplinary violations and misconduct in course performance by providing high-quality teaching and guidance to the students and by keeping students and lecturers well-informed about how to consider ethical and legal viewpoints in teaching and studying. However, if misconduct or disciplinary violations should occur, they will be handled in accordance with these Guidelines. 

According to the Degree Regulations of Metropolia, all members of Metropolia’s work or study community must do their part to ensure that their work and study environment is safe and pleasant by following general safety instructions and principles of good conduct. Students and staff must behave appropriately at Metropolia. Intoxicant abuse and appearing under their influence in any study contexts is prohibited. The use of intoxicating substances in Metropolia premises is prohibited except at events for which a special permission has been granted.

2.1 Matters processed by the Board of Examiners

The Board of Examiners handles rectification requests concerning course performance, as referred to in section 19 of the Universities of Applied Sciences Act, and disciplinary cases, as referred to in section 38 of the same Act. Disciplinary cases include a student’s actions that disrupt teaching, violent or threatening behaviour, misconduct or other actions disrupting order at the university of applied sciences. 

2.1.1 Request to rectify course performance 

A student who is dissatisfied with the assessment of their course performance or the accreditation of their studies or competence may present a verbal or written rectification request to the lecturer who has assessed the performance or the accreditor who made the decision on accreditation within 14 days of being informed of the result. A reply to the rectification request must be given in writing within 14 days of the date on which the request was received. A rectification request may concern the assessment of an exam or practical training, for example.

If the student is dissatisfied with the decision of the lecturer or the accreditor concerning the rectification request, they may submit a written appeal to Metropolia’s Board of Examiners within 14 days of being informed of the decision by the lecturer or the accreditor.

2.1.2 Disruptive, violent or threatening behaviour

The Board of Examiners handles cases in which a student is alleged to have behaved inappropriately, disruptively, violently or threateningly or to have appeared under the influence of alcohol or drugs at Metropolia, in a work placement or in other study-related situations.

Behaviour that disrupts teaching or studying and violent or threatening behaviour are divided into various categories, depending on the seriousness of the disruption, danger or threat:

1. Category B–C: Slight or moderate case

   Examples: A student behaves inappropriately towards other students, staff, visitors or other people that they meet in connection with studies or a work placement, or disrupts their work. A student uses inappropriate language. A student insults or bullies other students, staff, visitors or other people that they work with in connection with studies or a work placement, or reveals their personal data to a third party or otherwise acts in violation of data protection rules and guidelines. 

2. Category A: Gross case 

   A student intentionally or through gross negligence damages property at Metropolia or at a work placement or property belonging to a partner.

   Examples: A student acts violently or makes violent threats to other students, staff, visitors or other people that they meet in connection with studies or a work placement. A student poses a threat to public safety or causes significant damage to Metropolia. 

   A student reveals to a third party the personal data, including sensitive personal data and special categories of personal data, of other students, staff, visitors or other people that they interact with in connection with studies or a work placement, or otherwise acts in violation of data protection rules and guidelines, and does so repeatedly or in a manner that can be considered deliberate or gross. 

   A student accesses a forbidden domain in an information network, causes an information security threat or causes damage to an information system.

If a student notices another student disrupting teaching or acting violently, threateningly or disruptively, they must inform a lecturer or another member of staff of the matter. Similarly, if a lecturer, other member of staff or the supervisor of a work placement notices such behaviour, they must inform other members of staff at Metropolia. A lecturer or work placement supervisor may order a student or any other person who disrupts studying or teaching, disturbs other people, behaves violently or threateningly or puts other people’s health or safety at risk to leave the teaching or work placement premises, Metropolia’s premises or an event organised by Metropolia.

Upon a request from a lecturer, the director of school who is in charge of the degree programme may suspend a student from attending tuition for a maximum of three days (in accordance with section 38.3 of the Universities of Applied Sciences Act and section 31 of Metropolia’s Degree Regulations) if there is a risk that the safety of another student or a person working in the university of applied sciences or some other teaching facility is threatened as a result of the student’s threatening or violent behaviour or if the student’s disruptive conduct makes teaching and associated activities unreasonably difficult. The aforementioned measures must be recorded in accordance with Metropolia’s instructions.

In a slight or moderate case, the lecturer or another member of staff should discuss the matter with the student and give them a verbal warning. The person who gives the verbal warning must inform the head of degree programme, who records the case in accordance with Metropolia’s instructions. If the disruptive behavior continues, the director of school will speak to the student and give them a written warning, if necessary. 

If the disruptive behaviour continues after the written warning, the lecturer or another member of staff must refer the case for handling by the Board of Examiners. If the disruptive behaviour is gross, this should always be done right from the start. 

2.1.3 Misconduct

All misconduct (including cheating) in matters related to studies, exams and learning assignments is prohibited. 

Misconduct is always evaluated case by case. Appendix 1 contains some of the interpretations of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity concerning misconduct. 

Cases of misconduct are divided into three categories: A, B and C. When handling a case, the lecturer must assess how serious it is. The case should be filed under the category whose description is the closest to the case’s details.

1. Category C: Slight case

   The misconduct is occasional, unplanned and possibly even indeliberate. Examples: A student copies a small quantity of text for their thesis or assignment without referencing the source. A student looks at the answers of another student in an examination situation. A student uses unauthorised material in an examination, which may be done by error. Even if successful, the student would not gain a significant benefit from the misconduct. The student has not been found guilty of misconduct before. The student admits the misconduct and regrets it. 

2. Category B: Moderate case

   The misconduct is occasional and not carefully planned; however, it is committed consciously and deliberately. Examples: A student copies a fair amount of text for their thesis or assignment without referencing the source. A student directly uses parts of another student’s assignment in an assignment that they present as their own. A student repeatedly looks at the answers of another student in an examination situation. A student uses unauthorised material in an examination, which may be deliberate, or does not clear the memory of their calculator before the start of the examination. A student uses a telephone or another communications device during an examination without permission. If the attempt is successful, the student would gain some benefit from the misconduct. The student has not been found guilty of misconduct before. 

3. Category A: Gross case

   The misconduct was planned in advance and the student committed it knowingly. Examples: A significant portion, or the majority, of a student’s thesis or assignment is copied without referencing the source. A student hands in an assignment made by another student as their own as such or after making minimal adjustments to it. A student requests another person to complete an assignment and hands it in as their own. A student cooperates with another student in an examination. A student uses unauthorised material or a pre-prepared cheat sheet in an examination. A student uses a telephone or a similar communications device during an examination and utilises the information obtained through the use of the device in the examination. If the attempt is successful, the student would gain a definite benefit from the misconduct. A case is always gross if the student has previously been found guilty of misconduct. 

As a further clarification, the following actions are considered misconduct: 

• copying another person’s assignment, thesis or other completed course performance and presenting it as your own,
• having someone else do your assignments, thesis or other course performance,
• copying text, images, charts or other material for your own work without appropriately referencing the source in line with normal practices,
• using forbidden notes, devices or tools or cooperating with others in an exam or a similar situation, for example looking at another student’s exam answers,
• using tools such as AI, or tools powered by AI, that Metropolia’s instructions forbid students from using in assignments, exams or other course performance. 

A lecturer, work placement supervisor or other person supervising course performance must always take action if they detect or suspect misconduct, including in cases where a student reports another student on suspicion of misconduct. Metropolia does not handle anonymous reports of alleged misconduct.

A lecturer who suspects a student of having committed misconduct in their studies must suspend the completion of the studies immediately, and the student suspected of misconduct must be removed from the event.  The student’s course performance will not be recorded and the performance cannot continue before the alleged misconduct has been investigated.

After detecting possible misconduct or hearing of alleged misconduct from another person, the lecturer must first discuss the allegation of misconduct with the suspected student. The student or the lecturer may ask for a student representative or the lecturer’s supervisor, or both, to participate in the discussion. In a moderate or gross case, the lecturer’s supervisor must always participate in the discussion. The discussion may take place through email correspondence. Allegations of misconduct are resolved case by case. The lecturer must prepare a written memorandum of the discussion or email exchange, in which they record the lecturer’s allegation of misconduct, the student’s response and the lecturer’s decision on further measures. 

The participants in the discussion must check and sign the memorandum. If one of the participants in the discussion does not agree with the memorandum, they have the right to record a dissenting opinion in the memorandum. After the discussion, the memorandum must be provided to the student as well as to the head of degree programme, who saves the document in accordance with Metropolia’s archiving practices. 

If it is found in the discussion that the student is not guilty of misconduct, the matter need not be processed further. Similarly, in a case of mild misconduct that the student admits, the case need not be processed further and the student will be given a new opportunity to complete the course the next time it is held or according to the lecturer’s discretion. If the student is found guilty of misconduct, the misconduct is considered an attempt at completing the course performance, in which case the next attempt will be a re-take of the course or exam.

The lecturer or their supervisor will refer the case to be handled by the Board of Examiners in moderate cases where no conclusion is reached in the discussion between the lecturer and the student. Gross cases of misconduct must always be referred to the Board of Examiners. 

The case is referred to the Board of Examiners by sending a statement describing the events to the Registry Office, as well as the memorandum on the case and any documents containing evidence of the misconduct. The statement must include the student’s degree programme and student number and the name of the director of school. 

2.1.4 Providing information on state of health and functional capacity 

According to section 34 of the Universities of Applied Sciences Act, a student may be required to submit to examinations for determining their state of health and to provide an extract of their criminal record, as well as to provide a drug test certificate as required in section 36 of the same Act. 

If the student refuses, their right to study may be suspended by a decision of the director of school until they agree to an examination or provide the aforementioned extract or certificate. Additionally, the student’s right to study may be suspended if the drug test certificate provided by the student indicates that they have used drugs for a reason other than medication to such an extent that their functional capacity is weakened.  The process and other measures related to this matter are described in more detail in Metropolia’s SORA guidelines and the process related to it.

The Board of Examiners is composed of a Chair and two (2) other members, all of whom have a personal deputy. The Chair and their deputy must be principal lecturers or senior lecturers. The other members of the Board of Examiners consist of a lecturer at Metropolia and a student completing degree studies, along with their deputies. In accordance with section 11 of the Rules of Procedure of Metropolia, the Board of Directors of Metropolia appoints the Chair and members of the Board of Examiners as well as their deputies for a term of two (2) calendar years. 

If a member of the Board of Examiners is prevented from handling a case, or has a conflict of interest in it, their deputy member will participate in handling the case in question. The Board of Examiners is competent to handle a case when the Chair or Vice Chair and two members, or their deputies, are present at a meeting. 

A representative of the teaching staff appointed by the President and CEO is responsible for the preparation, presentation and execution of the cases handled by the Board of Examiners, and this representative has the right to be present and to speak at the meetings of the Board of Examiners. The Board of Examiners may invite experts to participate in the processing of a case at its meetings, where they have the right to be present and to speak. The Student Union’s Student Counsel is an expert member of the Board of Examiners with the right to be present and to speak at the meetings.

4.1 Initiation of a case

A case is initiated by the Board of Examiners once it has been sent in writing to Metropolia’s Registry Office, either by email (kirjaamo [at] metropolia.fi (kirjaamo[at]metropolia[dot]fi)) or by post (Metropolia University of Applied Sciences Ltd, Registry Office, PO Box 4000, 00079 Metropolia). The Registry Office will inform the presenting officer, the Chair and the Vice Chair of the Board of Examiners as well as the person in charge of the case in Metropolia’s Legal Services by email or through the case management system.

The Board of Examiners does not handle anonymous reports; a case will be handled only if the identity of the person reporting it is known to the Board (regulations concerning hearings in accordance with Chapter 6 of the Administrative Procedure Act and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

4.2 Preparation of a case

Once a case has been initiated, a person appointed by the President and CEO will prepare the case and, if necessary, ask for more information from the parties involved, including the person who reported the case. The parties involved, both students and members of staff, have the right to provide a written statement for the processing of the case. This means that, if the case is initiated by someone other than the student, the person preparing the case will send the documents related to the case to the student and request the student to provide a written statement for the case and, if necessary, additional information based on the details that have emerged in the preparation of the case. The Board of Examiners may also hear other experts in the case. The case is sent to the student’s Metropolia email address or, if the student has already graduated and their email address is no longer active, to another email address known to Metropolia, or if no such address exists, to the last email address provided by the student. 

The Board of Examiners will process and resolve the case even in situations where a person involved in the case has not provided a statement on the case, despite being requested to do so. If the presenting officer deems that an appeal has not been submitted in accordance with Metropolia’s instructions, for example if it was submitted after the deadline or the student did not first request a rectification from the assessing lecturer or the person who decided on accreditation, the Board of Examiners will not process the case and it will be returned to the person who initiated it. 

4.3 Processing of a case at a meeting of the Board of Examiners

The Board of Examiners will processes a case at its meeting based on the presentation prepared by a person appointed by the President and CEO. The Board of Examiners may invite experts or persons related to a case to be heard orally at the meeting held for processing the case. 

The parties to the case will also be given the opportunity to be heard orally at the meeting of the Board of Examiners where the case is processed. If a party to the case wants an oral hearing at the meeting of the Board of Examiners, they must request this in writing either when the case is initiated or otherwise from the person preparing the case. The Chair of the Board of Examiners may make arrangements so that the person who is suspected of misconducted and the person who reported the case do not meet each other, if this is requested in writing well in advance of the meeting. The student also has the right to receive support from the Student Counsel during the processing of the case.

4.4 Decision of the Board of Examiners

The Board of Examiners prepares minutes of its meeting, which will include a motion for a decision on the case. The minutes must include the student’s degree programme and student number and the name of the director of school. 

Once the Board of Examiners has processed the case at its meeting, the final decision will depend on the nature of the case. 

1. Rectification of course assessment or an accreditation decision

   In a case concerning the rectification of course assessment or an accreditation decision, the Board of Examiners may:

• decide that the rectification request is justified and the case will be forwarded to the lecturer who performed the course assessment or the person who made the accreditation decision, who must revise their assessment or decision.
• decide that the rectification request is unjustified and leave the assessment or accreditation decision in force. 

2. Disciplinary action or misconduct

   In a case involving disciplinary action or misconduct, the Board of Examiners may:

• conclude the processing of the case if it deems that, in a disciplinary case, the student’s actions do not fulfil the criteria for further measures, or in a case of misconduct, the student is not guilty of misconduct or that the misconduct is slight (category C), and the case is returned for handling by the degree programme and the lecturer.
• present a motion to the President and CEO for issuing a written warning, after which the case will be decided on by the President and CEO.
  • The performance of a course will be failed if the student is found guilty of misconduct.The lecturer, together with their supervisor, will decide how the student will complete the course in which the misconduct was detected. The student may restart the course in the next course implementation or resume the interrupted course performance, depending on the lecturer’s decision. The course in question cannot, however, be resumed before a decision has been made on the allegation of misconduct.
• present a motion to expel the student temporarily for a maximum of one year if the action or negligence is gross or if the student repeatedly behaves inappropriately after having received a written warning. The Board of Directors of Metropolia decides on the expulsion of the student.
  • A student who has been temporarily expelled may resume their studies after the temporary expulsion period at the earliest. The temporary expulsion period will count towards the period spent by the student as attending, despite the student losing the right to attend tuition, practical training or exams during this period. The student is also not entitled to receive guidance for practical assignments or their thesis.

4.5 Providing information on a decision

The Board of Examiners will take a decision on the case, and the decision will be forwarded by the Board’s secretary to Metropolia’s Registry Office. The Registry Office will send the decision to the student electronically, if the student has consented to this, or in a registered letter. 

If the Board of Examiners has presented a motion to issue a warning to the student or to expel the student temporarily, the case will next be forwarded to the President and CEO, followed by the Board of Directors in the case of expulsion. The student will be informed, in the manner stated above, of the President and CEO’s and/or the Board of Directors’ decision once it has been taken. 

4.6 Appeals against a decision of the Board of Examiners

According to section 60 of the Universities of Applied Sciences Act, no appeals can be lodged against a decision of the Board of Examiners concerning a request to rectify course assessment or an accreditation decision. An appeal against other administrative decisions made by the Board of Examiners may be lodged with the administrative court within whose jurisdiction the head office of the university of applied sciences is located, as provided in the Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003), unless stated otherwise in other legislation.

2 What is Misconduct?

The Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK) divides violations against the responsible conduct of research into disregard for the responsible conduct of research and research misconduct (see Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland, www.tenk.fi):   

Disregard:

• Negligence in the performance of research.
• Denigrating the role of other researchers.
• Referring to earlier research results inadequately or inappropriately, such as presenting direct quotes without citations.
• Reporting research results in a careless manner.
• Recording research results inadequately.
• Publishing the same research results multiple times ostensibly as new and novel results.

Misconduct:

• Fabrication, which is the reporting of invented observations.
• Falsification, which is modifying and presenting original observations deliberately so that the results based on those observations are distorted. The selective use and omission of research results is also considered falsification.
• Plagiarism, or unacknowledged borrowing, refers to representing another person’s research plans, manuscripts, reports, study assignments, examination answers or other texts as one’s own without appropriate references.
• Misappropriation refers to the unlawful presentation of another person’s research idea, plan or observation as one’s own research.
• Cheating in an examination.
• Misconduct in the performance or documentation of a work placement.
• Having one’s own written assignments, exercises or theses done by others.

In addition, Metropolia considers the following to be cases of misconduct:

• Cheating in an examination.
• Misconduct in the performance or documentation of a work placement.
• Having one’s own written assignments, exercises or theses done by others.