Förödmjukande uppdrag - Om journalisters möjlighet att arbetsvägra
(2018) LAGF03 20182Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- Labour in exchange of salary is the basic agreement of almost all em-ployments. A person who violates this agreement will be at risk of being guilty of refusal of work and, in worst case, could be dismissed. In other words: You should do what you are told at work.
However, the collective agreements that exist between the Swedish Journalist Union and the employers organization Almega contains a rule that is making it possible to refuse to carry out an assignment that is regarded as humiliating. The main purpose of this paper is to answer how this rule should be interpre-ted in relation to the journalists work obligations and the employer's supervi-sory right. By interpreting the wording of the current rule, the essay seeks to answer how... (More) - Labour in exchange of salary is the basic agreement of almost all em-ployments. A person who violates this agreement will be at risk of being guilty of refusal of work and, in worst case, could be dismissed. In other words: You should do what you are told at work.
However, the collective agreements that exist between the Swedish Journalist Union and the employers organization Almega contains a rule that is making it possible to refuse to carry out an assignment that is regarded as humiliating. The main purpose of this paper is to answer how this rule should be interpre-ted in relation to the journalists work obligations and the employer's supervi-sory right. By interpreting the wording of the current rule, the essay seeks to answer how it can be understood. This is followed by interviews with the Swedish Journalists Union and Almega at central and local level, as well as active journalists within the daily press, to learn more about how the rule is used today.
The paper has a consistent power perspective, due to the fact that there is an imbalance in the power relationship between employers and employees, where the employee is typically the weaker party.
The essay notes that the rule, although it has existed in the agreement since 1942, is untested in central negotiation. That makes the rule difficult to inter-pret and difficult to apply. The protection object for the rule is at one and the same time the journalism and the journalist. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the rule is intended to be applied through an order for interpre-tation, where the employee organization temporarily takes over the supervi-sory right. In conclusion, the paper concludes that the rule should be clarified in order not to jeopardize it’s meaning, not least in view of its importance for a free and independent press. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Arbete i utbyte mot lön utgör grundförutsättningarna för i snart sagt allt ar-bete. Den som bryter denna överenskommelse löper risk att göra sig skyldig till arbetsvägran och i värsta fall bli avskedad. Kort sagt: du bör göra som du blir tillsagd på ditt arbete.
I de kollektivavtal som finns mellan Svenska Journalistförbundet och arbets-givarorganisationen Almega finns dock en regel som öppnar upp för att vägra utföra ett uppdrag som är att anse som förödmjukande. Huvudsyftet med upp-satsen är att svara på hur denna regel ska förstås i relation till journalisternas arbetsskyldighet och arbetsgivarens arbetsledningsrätt. Genom att tolka den aktuella regelns ordalydelse söker uppsatsen svar på hur den kan förstås. Detta följs sedan av... (More) - Arbete i utbyte mot lön utgör grundförutsättningarna för i snart sagt allt ar-bete. Den som bryter denna överenskommelse löper risk att göra sig skyldig till arbetsvägran och i värsta fall bli avskedad. Kort sagt: du bör göra som du blir tillsagd på ditt arbete.
I de kollektivavtal som finns mellan Svenska Journalistförbundet och arbets-givarorganisationen Almega finns dock en regel som öppnar upp för att vägra utföra ett uppdrag som är att anse som förödmjukande. Huvudsyftet med upp-satsen är att svara på hur denna regel ska förstås i relation till journalisternas arbetsskyldighet och arbetsgivarens arbetsledningsrätt. Genom att tolka den aktuella regelns ordalydelse söker uppsatsen svar på hur den kan förstås. Detta följs sedan av intervjuer med Svenska Journalistförbundet och Almega på central respektive lokal nivå samt verksamma journalister inom dagspress, för att få en bild av hur regeln används idag.
Uppsatsen utgår från att det finns en obalans i maktförhållandet mellan arbets-givare och arbetstagare, där arbetstagaren typiskt sett är den svagare parten och har ett genomgående maktperspektiv.
Uppsatsen konstaterar bland annat att regeln, trots att den har funnits i avtalet sedan 1942, är oprövad i central förhandling. Det gör regeln svår att tolka och svår att tillämpa. Skyddsobjektet för regeln blir på en och samma gång journa-listiken och den enskilda journalisten. Frågan kompliceras ytterligare något genom att regeln är tänkt att tillämpas genom ett tolkningsföreläggande, där arbetstagarorganisationen tillfälligt tar över arbetsledningsrätten.
Sammanfattningsvis konstaterar uppsatsen att regeln bör förtydligas för att inte äventyra att urholkas, inte minst med hänsyn till dess betydelse för en fri och oberoende press. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8965668
- author
- Ferngren, Caroline LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20182
- year
- 2018
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- arbetsrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8965668
- date added to LUP
- 2019-03-13 12:10:30
- date last changed
- 2019-03-13 12:10:30
@misc{8965668,
abstract = {{Labour in exchange of salary is the basic agreement of almost all em-ployments. A person who violates this agreement will be at risk of being guilty of refusal of work and, in worst case, could be dismissed. In other words: You should do what you are told at work.
However, the collective agreements that exist between the Swedish Journalist Union and the employers organization Almega contains a rule that is making it possible to refuse to carry out an assignment that is regarded as humiliating. The main purpose of this paper is to answer how this rule should be interpre-ted in relation to the journalists work obligations and the employer's supervi-sory right. By interpreting the wording of the current rule, the essay seeks to answer how it can be understood. This is followed by interviews with the Swedish Journalists Union and Almega at central and local level, as well as active journalists within the daily press, to learn more about how the rule is used today.
The paper has a consistent power perspective, due to the fact that there is an imbalance in the power relationship between employers and employees, where the employee is typically the weaker party.
The essay notes that the rule, although it has existed in the agreement since 1942, is untested in central negotiation. That makes the rule difficult to inter-pret and difficult to apply. The protection object for the rule is at one and the same time the journalism and the journalist. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the rule is intended to be applied through an order for interpre-tation, where the employee organization temporarily takes over the supervi-sory right. In conclusion, the paper concludes that the rule should be clarified in order not to jeopardize it’s meaning, not least in view of its importance for a free and independent press.}},
author = {{Ferngren, Caroline}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Förödmjukande uppdrag - Om journalisters möjlighet att arbetsvägra}},
year = {{2018}},
}