Sist in, först ut; barriär eller chimär?
(2014) HARH16 20132Department of Business Law
- Abstract
- The Employment Protection Act has, ever since its creation in 1974, moved away from its original purpose, to protect employees – especially the elderly and the sick – and their interest in job security, to increasingly meet employer's interest in efficiency.
The law sets up the requirement that a dismissal from the employer must have just cause (or objective grounds). However, within this concept, two separate systems coexists; a dismissal made for personal reasons can be heavily scrutinized by the Labor Court, whereas a dismissal made due to redundancy amounts to just cause for dismissal per se. This can be explained by the fact that the Labor Court does not consider itself competent to review the assessment made by the employer as long... (More) - The Employment Protection Act has, ever since its creation in 1974, moved away from its original purpose, to protect employees – especially the elderly and the sick – and their interest in job security, to increasingly meet employer's interest in efficiency.
The law sets up the requirement that a dismissal from the employer must have just cause (or objective grounds). However, within this concept, two separate systems coexists; a dismissal made for personal reasons can be heavily scrutinized by the Labor Court, whereas a dismissal made due to redundancy amounts to just cause for dismissal per se. This can be explained by the fact that the Labor Court does not consider itself competent to review the assessment made by the employer as long as the employer’s reasons are "business related" or "non–personal".
Employees’ interest in job security shall instead be fulfilled by the last in, first out principle, meaning that the employer, in the event of redundancy, is not free to choose who shall be made redundant.
This principle, however, is tied to a demand that the employee must have sufficient qualifications for further employment. Case law from the Labor Court has furthermore opened up possibilities for employers to invoke personal reasons and personal inadequacies in the assessment regarding sufficient qualifications; reasons which by themselves most likely would not amount to just cause for dismissal. This has loosened up the sharp distinction between dismissals made for personal reasons and dismissals made due to redundancy; which in turn has a direct impact on the outcome of a dismissal.
Furthermore, as a part of fulfilling the criteria for just cause; employers are allowed to offer employees other alternative work outside of the seniority-rules (also known as the last in, first out-principle) and thus outside of their work obligations and job description, under conditions that are allowed to be vastly inferior to the preceding. However, to turn down such an offer amounts to just cause for dismissal. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Lagen om anställningsskydd har alltjämt sedan dess tillkomst 1974 gått ifrån sitt ursprungliga syfte, att skydda arbetstagare, i synnerhet äldre och sjuka, och deras intresse av trygghet i anställningen, till att alltmer tillgodose arbetsgivares intresse av effektivitet.
Lagen ställer upp krav på att en uppsägning från arbetsgivarens sida skall vara sakligt grundad men begreppet är tudelat; om en uppsägning finner sin grund i en arbetstagares person kan domstolen överpröva detta beslut på detaljnivå, om arbetsgivaren emellertid gör gällande att skälet för uppsägningen varit arbetsbrist är uppsägningen sakligt grundad. Detta finner sin förklaring i att arbetsdomstolen inte anser sig behörig att överpröva arbetsgivarens beslut så länge... (More) - Lagen om anställningsskydd har alltjämt sedan dess tillkomst 1974 gått ifrån sitt ursprungliga syfte, att skydda arbetstagare, i synnerhet äldre och sjuka, och deras intresse av trygghet i anställningen, till att alltmer tillgodose arbetsgivares intresse av effektivitet.
Lagen ställer upp krav på att en uppsägning från arbetsgivarens sida skall vara sakligt grundad men begreppet är tudelat; om en uppsägning finner sin grund i en arbetstagares person kan domstolen överpröva detta beslut på detaljnivå, om arbetsgivaren emellertid gör gällande att skälet för uppsägningen varit arbetsbrist är uppsägningen sakligt grundad. Detta finner sin förklaring i att arbetsdomstolen inte anser sig behörig att överpröva arbetsgivarens beslut så länge skälen för dessa är verksamhetsrelaterade.
Arbetstagarens intresse av trygghet är i denna del hänskjuten till principen om sist in, först ut alltså att arbetsgivaren, vid en uppsägning pga. arbetsbrist, inte står fri att välja vem som skall sägas upp.
Till denna princip är emellertid kopplat ett krav på att arbetstagaren, för att ha rätt till fortsatt anställning, skall ha tillräckliga kvalifikationer. Genom domstolens praxis tillåts arbetsgivaren emellertid att alltmer åberopa personliga egenskaper och otillräckligheter som annars inte torde vara tillräckliga för en uppsägning pga. personliga skäl. Detta har således luckrat upp den skarpa distinktion som finns i begreppet saklig grund mellan arbetsbrist och personliga skäl, där valet i sin tur får en direkt inverkan på utfallet vad gäller uppsägningens saklighet.
Arbetsgivare tillåts vidare att som ett led i fullgörandet av saklig grund-prövningen erbjuda arbetstagare annat arbete, utanför turordningskretsen och arbetsskyldigheten, med villkor som tillåts vara långt sämre än de arbetstagaren tidigare haft. Att neka sådant utgör i sin tur saklig grund för uppsägning. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4254721
- author
- Jönsson, Johan LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- En analys av arbetsgivares flexibilitet inom ramen för uppsägning på grund av arbetsbrist
- course
- HARH16 20132
- year
- 2014
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- just cause, redundancy, last in, first out, sufficient qualifications, reasonable offer.
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4254721
- date added to LUP
- 2014-01-31 16:32:24
- date last changed
- 2014-01-31 16:32:24
@misc{4254721,
abstract = {{The Employment Protection Act has, ever since its creation in 1974, moved away from its original purpose, to protect employees – especially the elderly and the sick – and their interest in job security, to increasingly meet employer's interest in efficiency.
The law sets up the requirement that a dismissal from the employer must have just cause (or objective grounds). However, within this concept, two separate systems coexists; a dismissal made for personal reasons can be heavily scrutinized by the Labor Court, whereas a dismissal made due to redundancy amounts to just cause for dismissal per se. This can be explained by the fact that the Labor Court does not consider itself competent to review the assessment made by the employer as long as the employer’s reasons are "business related" or "non–personal".
Employees’ interest in job security shall instead be fulfilled by the last in, first out principle, meaning that the employer, in the event of redundancy, is not free to choose who shall be made redundant.
This principle, however, is tied to a demand that the employee must have sufficient qualifications for further employment. Case law from the Labor Court has furthermore opened up possibilities for employers to invoke personal reasons and personal inadequacies in the assessment regarding sufficient qualifications; reasons which by themselves most likely would not amount to just cause for dismissal. This has loosened up the sharp distinction between dismissals made for personal reasons and dismissals made due to redundancy; which in turn has a direct impact on the outcome of a dismissal.
Furthermore, as a part of fulfilling the criteria for just cause; employers are allowed to offer employees other alternative work outside of the seniority-rules (also known as the last in, first out-principle) and thus outside of their work obligations and job description, under conditions that are allowed to be vastly inferior to the preceding. However, to turn down such an offer amounts to just cause for dismissal.}},
author = {{Jönsson, Johan}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Sist in, först ut; barriär eller chimär?}},
year = {{2014}},
}