Advanced

Omplacerad eller utsorterad? - En studie om den rättsliga utvecklingen kring reglerna om omplacering i 7 § andra stycket LAS och omplacering i turordning enligt 22 § fjärde stycket LAS

Frage, Hanna LU (2018) JURM02 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
The Employment Protection Act from 1974 was implemented in to Swedish law as a way to secure the employments of the employees. Before the implementation of the Act, the rights of the employees were regulated in collective agreements. By then there were only some rights regulated in the law. Some of the regulations that were implemented in to the Employment Protection Act was the 7§. The 7 § states that dismissal on the part of the employer has to have just cause. However, if it can be reasonably required that the employer transfer the employee to another job, there will be no just cause for dismissal. Another rule that was implemented was the 22 § of the Employment Protection Act. The purpose of the 22 § was to prevent the employer to... (More)
The Employment Protection Act from 1974 was implemented in to Swedish law as a way to secure the employments of the employees. Before the implementation of the Act, the rights of the employees were regulated in collective agreements. By then there were only some rights regulated in the law. Some of the regulations that were implemented in to the Employment Protection Act was the 7§. The 7 § states that dismissal on the part of the employer has to have just cause. However, if it can be reasonably required that the employer transfer the employee to another job, there will be no just cause for dismissal. Another rule that was implemented was the 22 § of the Employment Protection Act. The purpose of the 22 § was to prevent the employer to one-sidedly choose which employees that would be dismissed in case of shortage of work. According to the 22 § the employees are to be transferred within their operational unit. If there is a collective agreement a priority list will be determined for each area of collective agreement. The employees with the longest total period of service for the employer, are prioritized a head of those with shorter period of service for the employer. The purpose of this essay was to examine what rights the employees have when transferred. Also what obligations and rights the employees have when transferring. More precisely the essay examined how the rules in 7 § relate to the rules of 22 § in the Employment Protection Act. I have used a legal dogmatic method to achieve the purpose of the essay. There has also been a critical perspective and a historical perspective to the analysis. There are different opinions regarding what order the rules should be applied. In what order the rules are applied results in different consequences for the employees. In the beginning the judgements of the Swedish Labour Court was indefinitely. Although with time, there were some judgements that clarified the matter. In the case AD 1996 nr 144 the Swedish Labour Court proclaimed that the priority rules would not be applied on the transfers according to the 7 §. The Swedish Labour Court also decided in the case AD 2005 nr 57 that if the employee turned down a reasonable offer of transfer, the rules of priority would not apply. In the case AD 2009 nr 50 the court proclaimed that the 7 § would be applied before the priority rules in the 22 §. Lastly the court proclaimed in AD 2011 nr 30 that the priority rules would not be applied before 7 § even if the consequence of not receiving an offer of transfer would be dismissal. There are those in the area of jurisprudence that are critical to these rulings. To apply the 7 § before the making of a priority list according to 22 § is considered by some, a way to reduce the rights of the employees. My conclusion is that it must be difficult for employees to know what a reasonable offer of transfer is. My conclusion is also that the order of the rules should change, so that the priority rules in 22 § is considered before the 7 §. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Lagen om anställningsskydd infördes år 1974 för att trygga anställningen för alla enskilda arbetstagare på den svenska arbetsmarknaden. Tidigare hade arbetstagarnas rättigheter reglerats i kollektivavtal och endast vissa arbetstagares rättigheter var reglerade i lag. Några regler som infördes i 1974 års lag var bland annat saklig grund för uppsägning enigt 7 § LAS. För att saklig grund skulle anses föreligga, krävdes dock att arbetsgivaren omplacerade arbetstagaren. Turordningsregler infördes i 22 § LAS. Syftet med turordningsreglerna var att förhindra att arbetsgivaren ensidigt valde ut vilka arbetstagare som skulle sägas upp från anställningen när det råder arbetsbrist på arbetsplatsen. Arbetstagarna ska enligt 22 § omplaceras inom sin... (More)
Lagen om anställningsskydd infördes år 1974 för att trygga anställningen för alla enskilda arbetstagare på den svenska arbetsmarknaden. Tidigare hade arbetstagarnas rättigheter reglerats i kollektivavtal och endast vissa arbetstagares rättigheter var reglerade i lag. Några regler som infördes i 1974 års lag var bland annat saklig grund för uppsägning enigt 7 § LAS. För att saklig grund skulle anses föreligga, krävdes dock att arbetsgivaren omplacerade arbetstagaren. Turordningsregler infördes i 22 § LAS. Syftet med turordningsreglerna var att förhindra att arbetsgivaren ensidigt valde ut vilka arbetstagare som skulle sägas upp från anställningen när det råder arbetsbrist på arbetsplatsen. Arbetstagarna ska enligt 22 § omplaceras inom sin turordningskrets. De arbetstagare med längst anställningstid har företräde till omplacering framför de arbetstagare med kortare anställningstid, det krävs dock att arbetstagaren har tillräckliga kvalifikationer. Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka vilka rättigheter arbetstagare samt vilka skyldigheter arbetsgivare har vid omplacering på grund av arbetsbrist. Mer precist ska arbetet handla om att undersöka hur reglerna om omplacering i 7§ andra stycket LAS förhåller sig till reglerna om omplacering i 22 § LAS. Arbetet har utgått från en rättsdogmatisk metod. Syftet och frågeställningarna besvaras ur ett kritiskt och rättsgenetiskt perspektiv. Problematiken som uppstått gällande förhållandet mellan reglerna är att det råder oenighet i vilken ordning de ska tillämpas. Vilken ordning bestämmelserna tillämpas får nämligen olika konsekvenser för arbetstagarna. Arbetsdomstolens avgöranden var till en början oklara gällande förhållandet mellan omplaceringsreglerna. Med tiden kom avgöranden som klargjorde rättsläget. I AD 1996 nr 144 anförde domstolen att turordningsreglerna inte ska tillämpas på omplaceringar i 7 § andra stycket LAS. Domstolen hävdade i AD 2005 nr 57 att när en arbetstagare tackar nej till ett skäligt omplaceringserbjudande enligt 7 § LAS, ska reglerna om turordning inte tillämpas. I domen AD 2009 nr 50 slog arbetsdomstolen fast att 7 § LAS ska tillämpas före 22 § LAS. Slutligen ansåg domstolen i AD 2011 nr 30 att omplaceringserbjudanden enligt 7 § inte behöver ges i turordning, även om konsekvensen av att inte få ett erbjudande är uppsägning. Dessa avgöranden har kritiserats i doktrin. De finns dem som hävdar att domstolens uttalanden har lett till ett kringgående av lagstiftningen och att arbetstagarnas rättigheter inte beaktas. Jag har i uppsatsen kommit fram till att det är svårt för den enskilde arbetstagaren att avgöra vad som är ett skäligt omplaceringserbjudande. Det måste därför göra anställningen otrygg för den enskilde arbetstagaren, eftersom denne inte vet vilka omplaceringserbjudanden denne kan tacka nej till. Jag har också kommit fram till slutsatsen att turordningsreglerna i 22 § LAS bör beaktas i före 7 § LAS för att på bästa sätt tillgodose arbetstagarnas anställningsskydd. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Frage, Hanna LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Transferd or chosen?
course
JURM02 20181
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
arbetsrätt, omplacering
language
Swedish
id
8941730
date added to LUP
2018-06-08 10:15:01
date last changed
2018-06-08 10:15:01
@misc{8941730,
  abstract     = {The Employment Protection Act from 1974 was implemented in to Swedish law as a way to secure the employments of the employees. Before the implementation of the Act, the rights of the employees were regulated in collective agreements. By then there were only some rights regulated in the law. Some of the regulations that were implemented in to the Employment Protection Act was the 7§. The 7 § states that dismissal on the part of the employer has to have just cause. However, if it can be reasonably required that the employer transfer the employee to another job, there will be no just cause for dismissal. Another rule that was implemented was the 22 § of the Employment Protection Act. The purpose of the 22 § was to prevent the employer to one-sidedly choose which employees that would be dismissed in case of shortage of work. According to the 22 § the employees are to be transferred within their operational unit. If there is a collective agreement a priority list will be determined for each area of collective agreement. The employees with the longest total period of service for the employer, are prioritized a head of those with shorter period of service for the employer. The purpose of this essay was to examine what rights the employees have when transferred. Also what obligations and rights the employees have when transferring. More precisely the essay examined how the rules in 7 § relate to the rules of 22 § in the Employment Protection Act. I have used a legal dogmatic method to achieve the purpose of the essay. There has also been a critical perspective and a historical perspective to the analysis. There are different opinions regarding what order the rules should be applied. In what order the rules are applied results in different consequences for the employees. In the beginning the judgements of the Swedish Labour Court was indefinitely. Although with time, there were some judgements that clarified the matter. In the case AD 1996 nr 144 the Swedish Labour Court proclaimed that the priority rules would not be applied on the transfers according to the 7 §. The Swedish Labour Court also decided in the case AD 2005 nr 57 that if the employee turned down a reasonable offer of transfer, the rules of priority would not apply. In the case AD 2009 nr 50 the court proclaimed that the 7 § would be applied before the priority rules in the 22 §. Lastly the court proclaimed in AD 2011 nr 30 that the priority rules would not be applied before 7 § even if the consequence of not receiving an offer of transfer would be dismissal. There are those in the area of jurisprudence that are critical to these rulings. To apply the 7 § before the making of a priority list according to 22 § is considered by some, a way to reduce the rights of the employees. My conclusion is that it must be difficult for employees to know what a reasonable offer of transfer is. My conclusion is also that the order of the rules should change, so that the priority rules in 22 § is considered before the 7 §.},
  author       = {Frage, Hanna},
  keyword      = {arbetsrätt,omplacering},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Omplacerad eller utsorterad? - En studie om den rättsliga utvecklingen kring reglerna om omplacering i 7 § andra stycket LAS och omplacering i turordning enligt 22 § fjärde stycket LAS},
  year         = {2018},
}