Advanced

Saklig grund och uppsägning på grund av arbetsbrist i fransk och svensk rätt

Hellberg, Ida LU (2012) JURM02 20122
Department of Law
Abstract
There are several rules in Swedish and French labor law to protect the employee against unfair dismissal. When it comes to dismissal due to redundancy the employee is protected by the obligation on the employer to find the employee alternative work, the priority rules, the priority right to reemployment and by the requirement of a just cause. In Sweden, a dismissal due to redundancy is in principle always a just cause if the employer has fulfilled its obligation to find the employee alternative work. French law contains similar protection as the above as well as an obligation to establish a job-protection plan in case of collective redundancy. In French law the dismissal for economic reasons does not however imply a just cause. The court... (More)
There are several rules in Swedish and French labor law to protect the employee against unfair dismissal. When it comes to dismissal due to redundancy the employee is protected by the obligation on the employer to find the employee alternative work, the priority rules, the priority right to reemployment and by the requirement of a just cause. In Sweden, a dismissal due to redundancy is in principle always a just cause if the employer has fulfilled its obligation to find the employee alternative work. French law contains similar protection as the above as well as an obligation to establish a job-protection plan in case of collective redundancy. In French law the dismissal for economic reasons does not however imply a just cause. The court will instead control if the dismissal has a just cause or not. This means that the French court to a much larger extent examines the reasons behind the dismissals and the real cause for it.

Even if Swedish and French law contains similar protection, they are executed in different ways. The obligation to find the employee alternative work is less stringent in French law, both when it comes to who will get the offer and which offers the employer has to give. The priority rules are on the other hand stricter in Sweden. Here the principle first in – last out is applied, meaning the priority is decided by the employees' length of service. In France the length of service is one of several factors which the employer has to take into account when he or she decides the priority. The employer decides which factors to prioritize, which may make the priority in France more favorable for the employer compared to the Swedish rules. In France, all people who have been dismissed for economic reasons have priority right to reemployment; in Sweden the employee obtains this right after one year of service. The right to reemployment is for one year in France, in Sweden nine months. The person loses its right to reemployment in Sweden after not accepting a reasonable offer. In Sweden the employer can decide to use temporary workers instead of hiring. These two restrictions in the right to reemployment do not exist in France. All above mentioned differences leads to that the employment protection in the two countries differs significantly.

At the moment of this paper the employment protection is debated in both Sweden and France, partly as to implement the EU principle flexicurity. A new legislative proposal has been introduced in Sweden, in France there have been discussions about a new collective agreement during spring 2012 but the agreement was withdrawn after the presidential election.

Both the French and the Swedish law has its benefits. In France there is a lesser risk for an unfair dismissal, while in Sweden there are better possibilities for the employer to organize the activity in the most economically advantageous way. The obligations in French law differ from important principles in Sweden, where the employer’s right to direct and allocate work has a crucial role, such that a judgment by the court is viewed as a violation of this right. However, I do not find it to be impossible to demand from the court more sensible analyzes if there is a just cause for dismissal.

French version of the thesis is available in the appendix “Bilaga A”.

Une version française du mémoire est disponible en annexe “Bilaga A”. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Skyddet för arbetstagare mot felaktiga uppsägningar sker genom flera olika regleringar i svensk och fransk arbetsrätt. När det gäller uppsägning på grund av arbetsbrist skyddas arbetstagaren genom arbetsgivarens omplaceringsskyldighet, turordningsreglerna, rätten till återanställning samt genom kravet på att uppsägningen ska vara sakligt grundad. Det är den i princip alltid om det är fråga om arbetsbrist i svensk rätt och arbetsgivaren har uppfyllt sin omplaceringsskyldighet. I fransk rätt återfinns samma rättsregler som i svensk rätt samt ett krav på att upprätta en anställnings-skydds¬plan vid kollektiva uppsägningar. I fransk rätt innebär däremot inte en uppsägning av verksamhetsrelaterade skäl att saklig grund föreligger. Istället görs... (More)
Skyddet för arbetstagare mot felaktiga uppsägningar sker genom flera olika regleringar i svensk och fransk arbetsrätt. När det gäller uppsägning på grund av arbetsbrist skyddas arbetstagaren genom arbetsgivarens omplaceringsskyldighet, turordningsreglerna, rätten till återanställning samt genom kravet på att uppsägningen ska vara sakligt grundad. Det är den i princip alltid om det är fråga om arbetsbrist i svensk rätt och arbetsgivaren har uppfyllt sin omplaceringsskyldighet. I fransk rätt återfinns samma rättsregler som i svensk rätt samt ett krav på att upprätta en anställnings-skydds¬plan vid kollektiva uppsägningar. I fransk rätt innebär däremot inte en uppsägning av verksamhetsrelaterade skäl att saklig grund föreligger. Istället görs en kontroll om uppsägningen är sakligt grundad. Det innebär att den franska domstolen i betydligt högre grad kontrollerar anledningarna till uppsägningen samt den verkliga grunden för uppsägningen.

Även om i princip samma regler återfinns i svensk och fransk rätt skiljer dem sig åt i utformningen. Omplaceringsskyldigheten är betydligt mer omfattande i fransk rätt både när det gäller vem erbjudanden ska lämnas till och vilka erbjudanden som ska lämnas. Turordningsreglerna är däremot striktare i Sverige. Här gäller principen först in – sist ut, turordningen bestäms alltså uteslutande av arbetstagarnas anställningstid. I Frankrike är anställnings¬tiden bara en av flera faktorer som arbetsgivaren ska ta hänsyn till vid bestämmande av turordningen. Vilka faktorer som ska prioriteras bestämmer arbetsgivaren, vilket innebär att turordningen i Frankrike kan bli mer fördelaktig för arbetsgivaren jämfört med i Sverige. Återanställnings-rätten gäller i Frankrike för alla som blivit uppsagda av ekonomiska skäl medan i Sverige måste arbetstagaren ha varit anställd i ett år. Återanställnings¬rätten gäller i Frankrike i ett år, i Sverige nio månader. Arbetstagaren förlorar sin rätt till återanställning i Sverige om denna inte accepterar ett skäligt erbjudande. Arbetsgivaren kan även istället för att återanställa välja att hyra in arbetskraft i Sverige. Dessa två inskränkningar i återanställningsrätten finns inte i Frankrike. Alla nämnda skillnader leder till att anställnings¬skyddet i de båda länderna skiljer sig markant åt.

Anställningsskyddet är debatterat vid tidpunkten för denna uppsats i både Frankrike och i Sverige, vilket i viss mån kan ses som ett införlivande av EU:s princip flexicurity. I Sverige har ett lagförslag presenterats, i Frankrike har diskussioner kring ett nytt kollektivavtal förts under våren 2012, men lades ner efter presidentsvalet.

Både den franska och svenska rätten har sina fördelar. I Frankrike är det mindre risk att en arbetstagare osakligt blir uppsagd, medan i Sverige finns det större möjligheter för arbetsgivaren att ordna verksamheten på ett företagsekonomiskt fördelaktigt sätt. Den franska rättens krav ligger långt ifrån de principer som gäller i svensk rätt, där arbetsgivarens rätt att leda och fördela arbetet har stor betydelse och en kontroll av domstolen ses som en inskränkning av denna rätt. Däremot anser jag det inte omöjligt att kräva av domstolen att den gör en något mer nyanserad bedömning om saklig grund föreligger. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hellberg, Ida LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Just cause and dismissal due to redundancy in French and Swedish law
course
JURM02 20122
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
arbetsrätt, saklig grund
language
Swedish
id
3359299
date added to LUP
2013-01-28 13:06:09
date last changed
2013-01-28 13:06:09
@misc{3359299,
  abstract     = {There are several rules in Swedish and French labor law to protect the employee against unfair dismissal. When it comes to dismissal due to redundancy the employee is protected by the obligation on the employer to find the employee alternative work, the priority rules, the priority right to reemployment and by the requirement of a just cause. In Sweden, a dismissal due to redundancy is in principle always a just cause if the employer has fulfilled its obligation to find the employee alternative work. French law contains similar protection as the above as well as an obligation to establish a job-protection plan in case of collective redundancy. In French law the dismissal for economic reasons does not however imply a just cause. The court will instead control if the dismissal has a just cause or not. This means that the French court to a much larger extent examines the reasons behind the dismissals and the real cause for it. 

Even if Swedish and French law contains similar protection, they are executed in different ways. The obligation to find the employee alternative work is less stringent in French law, both when it comes to who will get the offer and which offers the employer has to give. The priority rules are on the other hand stricter in Sweden. Here the principle first in – last out is applied, meaning the priority is decided by the employees' length of service. In France the length of service is one of several factors which the employer has to take into account when he or she decides the priority. The employer decides which factors to prioritize, which may make the priority in France more favorable for the employer compared to the Swedish rules. In France, all people who have been dismissed for economic reasons have priority right to reemployment; in Sweden the employee obtains this right after one year of service. The right to reemployment is for one year in France, in Sweden nine months. The person loses its right to reemployment in Sweden after not accepting a reasonable offer. In Sweden the employer can decide to use temporary workers instead of hiring. These two restrictions in the right to reemployment do not exist in France. All above mentioned differences leads to that the employment protection in the two countries differs significantly. 

At the moment of this paper the employment protection is debated in both Sweden and France, partly as to implement the EU principle flexicurity. A new legislative proposal has been introduced in Sweden, in France there have been discussions about a new collective agreement during spring 2012 but the agreement was withdrawn after the presidential election.

Both the French and the Swedish law has its benefits. In France there is a lesser risk for an unfair dismissal, while in Sweden there are better possibilities for the employer to organize the activity in the most economically advantageous way. The obligations in French law differ from important principles in Sweden, where the employer’s right to direct and allocate work has a crucial role, such that a judgment by the court is viewed as a violation of this right. However, I do not find it to be impossible to demand from the court more sensible analyzes if there is a just cause for dismissal.

French version of the thesis is available in the appendix “Bilaga A”.

Une version française du mémoire est disponible en annexe “Bilaga A”.},
  author       = {Hellberg, Ida},
  keyword      = {arbetsrätt,saklig grund},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Saklig grund och uppsägning på grund av arbetsbrist i fransk och svensk rätt},
  year         = {2012},
}