Advanced

En (o)skälig omplacering? - En rättsvetenskaplig analys av arbetstagarskyddet vid arbetsbrist genom rätten till skälig omplacering

Schiller, Nicole LU (2019) JURM02 20192
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I samband med att företag drabbas av arbetsbrist aktualiseras arbetsgivarens skyldighet att utreda möjligheterna att erbjuda den eller de berörda arbetstagarna omplaceringar till andra befattningar i enlighet med 7 § 2 st. LAS. Denna omplaceringsskyldighet är tvingande oavsett företagets storlek och syftar till att så långt det går undvika friställningar av arbetstagare. Av lagtexten framgår att en uppsägning aldrig är sakligt grundad om det är skäligt att arbetsgivaren bereder arbetstagaren annat arbete hos sig. Vad begreppet skäligt innebär har utretts och fastställts genom en rad avgöranden från Arbetsdomstolen som uppställt höga och omfattande krav på arbetsgivaren. En uppsägning får därför aldrig vidtas om möjligheten att omplacera en... (More)
I samband med att företag drabbas av arbetsbrist aktualiseras arbetsgivarens skyldighet att utreda möjligheterna att erbjuda den eller de berörda arbetstagarna omplaceringar till andra befattningar i enlighet med 7 § 2 st. LAS. Denna omplaceringsskyldighet är tvingande oavsett företagets storlek och syftar till att så långt det går undvika friställningar av arbetstagare. Av lagtexten framgår att en uppsägning aldrig är sakligt grundad om det är skäligt att arbetsgivaren bereder arbetstagaren annat arbete hos sig. Vad begreppet skäligt innebär har utretts och fastställts genom en rad avgöranden från Arbetsdomstolen som uppställt höga och omfattande krav på arbetsgivaren. En uppsägning får därför aldrig vidtas om möjligheten att omplacera en eller flera arbetstagare finns, då har arbetsgivaren försummat sin skyldighet enligt LAS. Vid uppsägningar aktualiseras även en annan skyddsmekanism, nämligen de i 22 § LAS lagstadgade turordningsreglerna. Turordnings-bestämmelserna reglerar i vilken ordning uppsägningshotade arbetstagare ska och får friställas. Reglerna har också en inte helt okomplicerad relation till 7 § 2 st. LAS. Förhållandet mellan de två bestämmelserna har utkristalliserats på ett sådant sätt av Arbetsdomstolen att resultatet kritiserats i doktrinen då rättsverkningen inte överensstämmer med lagstiftningens syfte.

Genom att använda den rättsdogmatiska metoden har jag undersökt omplaceringsskyldighetens omfattning och räckvidd samt hur regeln om skälig omplacering förhåller sig till bestämmelserna om turordning. Ändamålet med detta examensarbete har varit att fastställa och analysera gällande rätt, varför en rättsdogmatisk metod varit den mest lämpliga. Vad gäller just omplaceringsskyldigheten råder det oklarheter kring dess omfattning och räckvidd vilket därför inte ger den förutsebarhet som efterfrågas inom civilrättens ramar.

Den första frågan är vilka åtgärder en arbetsgivare måste ha vidtagit för att ett skäligt omplaceringserbjudande ska ha vidtagits. Då lagstiftningen kring detta är knapphändig har den gällande rätten istället fått utvecklas genom Arbetsdomstolens praxis som fastställt vilka krav arbetsgivaren ska ha uppfyllt för att ett sådant erbjudande ska anses ha givits. De uppställda kraven är inte bara generellt tillämpliga. Arbetsdomstolen har genom sin praxis uppställt krav på att skäligheten även baseras på den individuella arbetstagarens personliga förutsättningar.

Den andra frågan är hur turordningsreglerna påverkar arbetstagarens möjligheter till omplacering vid arbetsbrist. Enligt Arbetsdomstolen ska en arbetsgivare omplacera arbetstagarna efter sitt eget och verksamhetens bästa och uttömma alla möjligheter innan hon eller han behöver turordna de arbetstagare som inte kunnat omplaceras.

Mina slutsatser av förevarande undersökning är att Arbetsdomstolens praxis kring skäliga omplaceringar förefaller som korrekt och rimlig. Mängden praxis på området innebär dock att förutsebarheten blir liten på grund av att rättsläget inte blir överblickbart. En av de bakomliggande intentionerna till denna undersökning har därför varit att försöka sammanställa denna praxis. Jag menar även att Arbetsdomstolens slutsats om att separera 7 § 2 st. från 22 § får en rättsverkan som inte är förenlig med LAS syfte. (Less)
Abstract
When companies are suffering from labor shortages, the employer’s obligation to investigate the possibility of offering the affected employee or employees other positions in accordance with section 7 second paragraph is raised. This relocation obligation is mandatory regardless of the size of the company and aims to avoid employee layoffs as far as possible. It is clear from the legal text that a dismissal never can be objectively justified if it is reasonable for the employer to prepare the employee for another employment. What the concept of reasonable means has been examined and established through a series of decision from the Swedish Labor Court, which has imposed high and extensive demands on the employer. A dismissal must therefore... (More)
When companies are suffering from labor shortages, the employer’s obligation to investigate the possibility of offering the affected employee or employees other positions in accordance with section 7 second paragraph is raised. This relocation obligation is mandatory regardless of the size of the company and aims to avoid employee layoffs as far as possible. It is clear from the legal text that a dismissal never can be objectively justified if it is reasonable for the employer to prepare the employee for another employment. What the concept of reasonable means has been examined and established through a series of decision from the Swedish Labor Court, which has imposed high and extensive demands on the employer. A dismissal must therefore never be made if the possibility of relocating one or several employees exists. By dismissing, the employer has neglected its obligation according to the Employment Protection Act. In the event of termination, another protection mechanism is also being updated, namely the sequence rules laid down in section 22 of the Employment Protection Act. The sequence rules regulate the order in which employees who are threatened with redundancy should and must be dismissed. The rules do also have a not entirely uncomplicated relationship with section 7 second paragraph of the Employment Protection Act. The relationship between the two rules has been crystallized in such a way by the Labor Court that the result has been criticized in the doctrine since the legal effect does not correspond to purpose of the legislation.

By using the legal judicial method, I have examined the scope and extent of the relocation obligation and how the rule of reasonable relocation relates to the rules on sequence. The purpose of this thesis has been to determine and analyze applicable law, which is why a legal judicial method has been the most appropriate. Regarding the relocation obligation, there are uncertainties about its scope and extent, which therefore does not provide the predictability that is demanded within the framework of civil law.
The first question is what steps that must be taken by an employer in order for a reasonable relocation offer to have been made. Since the legislation on this is scarce, the applicable law has instead been developed through the Labor Court’s praxis which determined what requirements the employer must have fulfilled in order for such an offer to be considered to have been given. The requirements laid down are not only generally applicable. Through its praxis, the Labor Court has demanded that reasonableness also is being based on the individual person’s conditions and hers or his personal prerequisites.

The second question is how the sequence rules affects the employee’s opportunities for relocating in the event of a labor shortage. According to the Labor Court, an employer must relocate the employees to the employers will and to business’s best, and exhaust all possibilities before she or he needs to sequence the employees who haven’t been able to be relocated.

My conclusions from the present investigation are that the Labor Court’s praxis regarding reasonable relocations seems to be both correct and reasonable. However, the amount of praxis on this area means that the predictability will be low since the legal situation will be complicated to embrace. One of the underlying intentions of this thesis has therefore been to try to compile this praxis. I also believe that the Labor Court’s conclusion on separating section 7 second paragraph from section 22 leads to a legal effect that is incompatible with the purpose of the Employment Protection Act. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Schiller, Nicole LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
An (un)resonable relocation?
course
JURM02 20192
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Arbetsrätt, Skälig omplacering, Turordningsregler, Civilrätt
language
Swedish
id
9005071
date added to LUP
2020-04-07 13:31:00
date last changed
2020-04-07 13:31:00
@misc{9005071,
  abstract     = {When companies are suffering from labor shortages, the employer’s obligation to investigate the possibility of offering the affected employee or employees other positions in accordance with section 7 second paragraph is raised. This relocation obligation is mandatory regardless of the size of the company and aims to avoid employee layoffs as far as possible. It is clear from the legal text that a dismissal never can be objectively justified if it is reasonable for the employer to prepare the employee for another employment. What the concept of reasonable means has been examined and established through a series of decision from the Swedish Labor Court, which has imposed high and extensive demands on the employer. A dismissal must therefore never be made if the possibility of relocating one or several employees exists. By dismissing, the employer has neglected its obligation according to the Employment Protection Act. In the event of termination, another protection mechanism is also being updated, namely the sequence rules laid down in section 22 of the Employment Protection Act. The sequence rules regulate the order in which employees who are threatened with redundancy should and must be dismissed. The rules do also have a not entirely uncomplicated relationship with section 7 second paragraph of the Employment Protection Act. The relationship between the two rules has been crystallized in such a way by the Labor Court that the result has been criticized in the doctrine since the legal effect does not correspond to purpose of the legislation. 

By using the legal judicial method, I have examined the scope and extent of the relocation obligation and how the rule of reasonable relocation relates to the rules on sequence. The purpose of this thesis has been to determine and analyze applicable law, which is why a legal judicial method has been the most appropriate. Regarding the relocation obligation, there are uncertainties about its scope and extent, which therefore does not provide the predictability that is demanded within the framework of civil law. 
The first question is what steps that must be taken by an employer in order for a reasonable relocation offer to have been made. Since the legislation on this is scarce, the applicable law has instead been developed through the Labor Court’s praxis which determined what requirements the employer must have fulfilled in order for such an offer to be considered to have been given. The requirements laid down are not only generally applicable. Through its praxis, the Labor Court has demanded that reasonableness also is being based on the individual person’s conditions and hers or his personal prerequisites. 

The second question is how the sequence rules affects the employee’s opportunities for relocating in the event of a labor shortage. According to the Labor Court, an employer must relocate the employees to the employers will and to business’s best, and exhaust all possibilities before she or he needs to sequence the employees who haven’t been able to be relocated. 

My conclusions from the present investigation are that the Labor Court’s praxis regarding reasonable relocations seems to be both correct and reasonable. However, the amount of praxis on this area means that the predictability will be low since the legal situation will be complicated to embrace. One of the underlying intentions of this thesis has therefore been to try to compile this praxis. I also believe that the Labor Court’s conclusion on separating section 7 second paragraph from section 22 leads to a legal effect that is incompatible with the purpose of the Employment Protection Act.},
  author       = {Schiller, Nicole},
  keyword      = {Arbetsrätt,Skälig omplacering,Turordningsregler,Civilrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {En (o)skälig omplacering? - En rättsvetenskaplig analys av arbetstagarskyddet vid arbetsbrist genom rätten till skälig omplacering},
  year         = {2019},
}