Advanced

Funktionsnedsättning i arbetslivet – en utredning av arbetsrättens och diskrimineringsrättens skydd mot uppsägning av personer med funktionsnedsättning

Hagbrand, Amanda LU (2015) JURM02 20141
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats behandlar anställnings- och diskrimineringsskyddet för arbetstagare med funktionsnedsättning i en uppsägningssituation. Skydd för arbetstagare med funktionsnedsättning finns i såväl arbetsrätten som i diskrimineringsrätten.
I LAS (Lag (1982:80) om anställningsskydd) finns regler som begränsar en arbetsgivares möjlighet att säga upp sina arbetstagare. För att en uppsägning ska vara förenlig med LAS kräver lagen att uppsägningen är sakligt grundad. Enligt lagen kan en uppsägning antingen vara motiverad av skäl som är hänförliga till arbetstagaren personligen (uppsägning av personliga skäl) eller av skäl hänförliga till verksamheten (uppsägning på grund av arbetsbrist). Om en arbetstagare sägs upp på grund av att hen har en... (More)
Denna uppsats behandlar anställnings- och diskrimineringsskyddet för arbetstagare med funktionsnedsättning i en uppsägningssituation. Skydd för arbetstagare med funktionsnedsättning finns i såväl arbetsrätten som i diskrimineringsrätten.
I LAS (Lag (1982:80) om anställningsskydd) finns regler som begränsar en arbetsgivares möjlighet att säga upp sina arbetstagare. För att en uppsägning ska vara förenlig med LAS kräver lagen att uppsägningen är sakligt grundad. Enligt lagen kan en uppsägning antingen vara motiverad av skäl som är hänförliga till arbetstagaren personligen (uppsägning av personliga skäl) eller av skäl hänförliga till verksamheten (uppsägning på grund av arbetsbrist). Om en arbetstagare sägs upp på grund av att hen har en funktionsnedsättning är uppsägningen motiverad av personliga skäl. Förekomsten av en funktionsnedsättning innebär inte i sig att det finns en saklig grund för uppsägning av arbetstagaren. Arbetsgivaren är skyldig att rehabilitera arbetstagaren, utföra anpassningsåtgärder samt utreda möjligheten till omplacering. I vissa fall är en uppsägning av en arbetstagare med funktionsnedsättning motiverad både av personliga och verksamhetsrelaterade skäl. Då föreligger en så kallad splittrad motivbild. Arbetsdomstolen har i ett antal mål slagit fast att uppsägningar med splittrade motivbilder ska anses motiverade av arbetsbrist. Förekomsten av arbetsbrist utgör en saklig grund för uppsägning. Vilken arbetstagare som ska sägas upp på grund av arbetsbristen avgörs av lagens turordningsregler. Innan uppsägning får ske är arbetsgivaren skyldig att uppfylla sitt rehabiliteringsansvar samt att utreda om det finns en ledig tjänst som arbetstagaren kan omplaceras till.
I det EU-rättsliga arbetslivsdirektivet (direktiv 2000/78/EG) uppställs ett förbud mot diskriminering av arbetstagare med funktionsnedsättning. I svensk rätt återfinns detta förbud i DL (Diskrimineringslag (2008:567)). Syftet med förbudet är att personer med funktionsnedsättning ska ges samma möjligheter i arbetslivet som den övriga befolkningen. Om en arbetstagares funktionsnedsättning innebär att dennes arbetsförmåga är nedsatt är arbetsgivaren skyldig att vidta skäliga stöd- och anpassningsåtgärder i syfte att försätta arbetstagaren i en situation jämförbar med övriga anställda.
Vid en genomgång av rättspraxis på området kan slutsatsen dras att det är relativt ovanligt att Arbetsdomstolen finner att en uppsägning av personer med nedsatt arbetsförmåga på grund av funktionsnedsättning är oförenlig med LAS eller DL. Domstolen har stor respekt för arbetsgivarens arbetsledningsrätt och detta får flera konsekvenser. Det innebär för det första att domstolen är restriktiv med att som en anpassningsåtgärd kräva att arbetsgivaren förändrar sin verksamhet. Vidare innebär det att en arbetsgivare medvetet kan välja att förändra sin verksamhet på ett sätt som gör att en anställd med funktionsnedsättning måste sägas upp utan att domstolen ifrågasätter arbetsgivarens beslut. Sammantaget kan sägas att det skydd LAS och DL erbjuder personer med funktionsnedsättning är begränsat. Av AD 2005 nr 32 framgår att lagstiftningarna kompletterar varandra genom att DL möjliggör en prövning av om reglerna i LAS tillämpats på ett diskriminerande sätt.
Min utredning ger vid handen att svensk diskrimineringslagstiftning på många punkter står i överensstämmelse med unionsrätten vad gäller skyddet för arbetstagare med funktionsnedsättning. Som framgår vid analys av AD 2013 nr 78 är det dock tveksamt om Sverige i tillräcklig mån tillämpar bevislättnader till förmån för käranden. En analys av AD 2012 nr 51 visar vidare att rättstillämpningen vid fall av splittrad motivbild strider mot EU-rätten. Vid konstaterad arbetsbrist gör domstolen nämligen ingen proportionalitetsbedömning av vilka anpassningsåtgärder som är skäliga att kräva av arbetstagaren, en bedömning som arbetslivsdirektivet kräver. (Less)
Abstract
This thesis examines the employment protection and the protection against discrimination for a disabled person facing dismissal. Legal protection for disabled employees can be found both in labour law and in anti-discrimination law.
The Employment Protection Act (SFS 1982:80) contains paragraphs that limit employer’s possibilities to dismiss his or her employees. A valid dismissal according to this said law must be objectively based, that means it must have just cause. According to the law, a dismissal can either be motivated by reasons adhering to the employee as a person (dismissal for personal reasons) or to reasons regarding the business in particular (dismissal due to redundancy).
If an employee is dismissed due to the fact that... (More)
This thesis examines the employment protection and the protection against discrimination for a disabled person facing dismissal. Legal protection for disabled employees can be found both in labour law and in anti-discrimination law.
The Employment Protection Act (SFS 1982:80) contains paragraphs that limit employer’s possibilities to dismiss his or her employees. A valid dismissal according to this said law must be objectively based, that means it must have just cause. According to the law, a dismissal can either be motivated by reasons adhering to the employee as a person (dismissal for personal reasons) or to reasons regarding the business in particular (dismissal due to redundancy).
If an employee is dismissed due to the fact that he or she has a disability the dismissal is due to personal reasons. The fact that a disability exists is not in itself a just cause for dismissal from employment. The employer has a responsibility to rehabilitate the employee, to provide reasonable accommodation to adjust the work for the employee and to investigate the possibility of reassigning the employee to another position more suitable for his or her disability. In some cases, dismissing an employee with a disability can be motivated by both personal reasons and as a consequence of redundancy. This is considered a split motive for dismissal. In several cases, the Swedish Labour Court has determined that dismissal due to a split motive shall be considered dismissal due to redundancy, and the existence of redundancy is a just cause for dismissal. The priority rules based on the seniority principle determines which employee that stands to be dismissed due to redundancy. Before such a dismissal may take place the employer is obliged to fulfill his responsibility to rehabilitate as well as investigate if there is a position available to which the employee could be reassigned.
In Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, there is a prohibition for dismissal of disabled employees, which can also be found in the Swedish Discrimination law (SFS 2008:567). The aim of this prohibition is to grant the same possibilities in work to people with a disability, which the rest of the population enjoy. If the disability of an employee causes that employee to have a diminished working capacity, the employer is obliged to undertake reasonable measures of support and adjustment to the purpose of placing the employee in a position where he or she has a capability comparable to the average staff.
An examination of the case-law regarding dismissals of persons with a disability will end in the conclusion that it is relatively unusual for the Swedish Labour Court to find that a dismissal due to such a disability is incoherent with the rules of the Employment Protection Act, or the Discrimination law. The Court has a large appreciation of the employer’s rights to staff management and this appreciation has several consequences. First of all, it means that the Court is restrictive with demanding that the employer restructure his or her business as a measure to adjust to the needs of the disabled employee. Furthermore, it means that an employer can knowingly chose to change his or her business in a way that causes an employee with a disability to be dismissed, without the Court questioning the decision to restructure. In essence it can be stated that the employment protection that is provided for disabled persons in Sweden is limited. In the case 2005 nr 32, by the Labour Court, it is evident that the Employment Protection Act and the Discrimination law supplement each other through the latter enabling an examination on whether or not the former has been applied in a discriminatory manner.
My investigation supplies that Swedish discriminatory law is in many cases comparable to Union law concerning the protection of employees with a disability. However, as is apparent when analysing the case 2013 nr 78 by the Swedish Labour Court, it is doubtful if Swedish law sufficiently practices relaxation of the burden of proof in favour of the plaintiff. An analyse of the case 2012 nr 51 further shows that the application of law in the case of a split motive for dismissal is inconsistent with EU-law. In the case of established redundancy, the Court makes no assessment of proportionality regarding which accommodations should reasonably be carried out by the employer, an assessment which Directive 2000/78/EC demands. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hagbrand, Amanda LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
A Study of the Protection against Dismissal of Persons with a Disability in Labour and Anti-discrimination Law
course
JURM02 20141
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
arbetsrätt, diskriminering
language
Swedish
id
5257250
date added to LUP
2015-04-23 13:43:52
date last changed
2015-04-23 13:43:52
@misc{5257250,
  abstract     = {This thesis examines the employment protection and the protection against discrimination for a disabled person facing dismissal. Legal protection for disabled employees can be found both in labour law and in anti-discrimination law. 
The Employment Protection Act (SFS 1982:80) contains paragraphs that limit employer’s possibilities to dismiss his or her employees. A valid dismissal according to this said law must be objectively based, that means it must have just cause. According to the law, a dismissal can either be motivated by reasons adhering to the employee as a person (dismissal for personal reasons) or to reasons regarding the business in particular (dismissal due to redundancy). 
If an employee is dismissed due to the fact that he or she has a disability the dismissal is due to personal reasons. The fact that a disability exists is not in itself a just cause for dismissal from employment. The employer has a responsibility to rehabilitate the employee, to provide reasonable accommodation to adjust the work for the employee and to investigate the possibility of reassigning the employee to another position more suitable for his or her disability. In some cases, dismissing an employee with a disability can be motivated by both personal reasons and as a consequence of redundancy. This is considered a split motive for dismissal. In several cases, the Swedish Labour Court has determined that dismissal due to a split motive shall be considered dismissal due to redundancy, and the existence of redundancy is a just cause for dismissal. The priority rules based on the seniority principle determines which employee that stands to be dismissed due to redundancy. Before such a dismissal may take place the employer is obliged to fulfill his responsibility to rehabilitate as well as investigate if there is a position available to which the employee could be reassigned.
In Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, there is a prohibition for dismissal of disabled employees, which can also be found in the Swedish Discrimination law (SFS 2008:567). The aim of this prohibition is to grant the same possibilities in work to people with a disability, which the rest of the population enjoy. If the disability of an employee causes that employee to have a diminished working capacity, the employer is obliged to undertake reasonable measures of support and adjustment to the purpose of placing the employee in a position where he or she has a capability comparable to the average staff.
An examination of the case-law regarding dismissals of persons with a disability will end in the conclusion that it is relatively unusual for the Swedish Labour Court to find that a dismissal due to such a disability is incoherent with the rules of the Employment Protection Act, or the Discrimination law. The Court has a large appreciation of the employer’s rights to staff management and this appreciation has several consequences. First of all, it means that the Court is restrictive with demanding that the employer restructure his or her business as a measure to adjust to the needs of the disabled employee. Furthermore, it means that an employer can knowingly chose to change his or her business in a way that causes an employee with a disability to be dismissed, without the Court questioning the decision to restructure. In essence it can be stated that the employment protection that is provided for disabled persons in Sweden is limited. In the case 2005 nr 32, by the Labour Court, it is evident that the Employment Protection Act and the Discrimination law supplement each other through the latter enabling an examination on whether or not the former has been applied in a discriminatory manner.
My investigation supplies that Swedish discriminatory law is in many cases comparable to Union law concerning the protection of employees with a disability. However, as is apparent when analysing the case 2013 nr 78 by the Swedish Labour Court, it is doubtful if Swedish law sufficiently practices relaxation of the burden of proof in favour of the plaintiff. An analyse of the case 2012 nr 51 further shows that the application of law in the case of a split motive for dismissal is inconsistent with EU-law. In the case of established redundancy, the Court makes no assessment of proportionality regarding which accommodations should reasonably be carried out by the employer, an assessment which Directive 2000/78/EC demands.},
  author       = {Hagbrand, Amanda},
  keyword      = {arbetsrätt,diskriminering},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Funktionsnedsättning i arbetslivet – en utredning av arbetsrättens och diskrimineringsrättens skydd mot uppsägning av personer med funktionsnedsättning},
  year         = {2015},
}