Blod är tjockare än LAS - eller? Om anställningsskyddet för medlemmar i arbetsgivarens familj
(2023) JURM02 20231Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I 1 § 2 st LAS stadgas att arbetstagare som är medlemmar i arbetsgivarens familj är undantagna huvuddelen av lagens bestämmelser. Syftet med uppsatsen är utreda hur privata relationer mellan anställningens parter påverkar anställningsförhållandet. Med en rättsdogmatisk metod besvaras uppsatsens frågeställningar: (i) hur har undantaget för arbetsgivarens familjemedlemmar från LAS utvecklats och hur har undantaget motiverats? (ii) vem omfattas av familjemedlemsundantaget? samt (iii) hur påverkar familjemedlemsundantaget den berörda kretsens anställningsskydd?
Sedan den första arbetsrättsliga lagen 1912 har familjen haft en särskild ställning. Undantaget av arbetsgivarens familjemedlemmar motiverades då med att man ville bevara familjen... (More) - I 1 § 2 st LAS stadgas att arbetstagare som är medlemmar i arbetsgivarens familj är undantagna huvuddelen av lagens bestämmelser. Syftet med uppsatsen är utreda hur privata relationer mellan anställningens parter påverkar anställningsförhållandet. Med en rättsdogmatisk metod besvaras uppsatsens frågeställningar: (i) hur har undantaget för arbetsgivarens familjemedlemmar från LAS utvecklats och hur har undantaget motiverats? (ii) vem omfattas av familjemedlemsundantaget? samt (iii) hur påverkar familjemedlemsundantaget den berörda kretsens anställningsskydd?
Sedan den första arbetsrättsliga lagen 1912 har familjen haft en särskild ställning. Undantaget av arbetsgivarens familjemedlemmar motiverades då med att man ville bevara familjen från det tvång och intrång som lagreglering skulle innebära samt att de speciella ”känslor av samhörighet och tillhörighet” i en familj kunde ersätta lagreglering. Vid införandet av LAS sades att förhållandet mellan arbetsgivaren och dess familjemedlemmar är av så pass speciell karaktär att det ej kan lagregleras. Undantaget har medfört särskilda konsekvenser vad gäller uppfyllnad av internationella konventioner, bland annat förhindrat ratifikationen av artikel 24 i europeiska sociala stadgan.
Den personkrets som ska räknas som familj i undantaget ska tolkas vidsträckt. I praxis är klarlagt att den omfattar arbetsgivares make eller maka, även under en period efter att dom om äktenskapsskillnad trätt i kraft. Därtill omfattas även sambor. Barn ska räknas till personkretsen, även om de har eget hushåll. Styv- och fosterbarn och avlägsnare släktingar omfattas om de bor med arbetsgivaren. Vad gäller arbetsgivare kan en person räknas som arbetsgivare även om verksamheten bedrivs i bolagsform, förutsatt att personen har väsentligt inflytande över verksamheten.
En familjemedlem som är undantagen LAS kan bli uppsagd eller avskedad utan sakliga skäl i den mån arbetsgivaren ej bryter mot annan lag eller uppsägningen utgör en föreningsrättskränkning. Regler om turordning eller företrädesrätt till återanställning tillämpas inte på arbetsgivarens familjemedlemmar. Däremot kan villkor i kollektivavtal eller personliga avtal reglera anställningsskyddet för familjemedlemmar.
Slutligen bedöms motiveringen till undantaget vara otillfredsställande, även om hänsyn tas till en intresseavvägning mellan trygga anställningar och skydd för familjeliv. Arbetstagare som tillhör arbetsgivarens familj bedöms ha ett svagt anställningsskydd, vilket jag menar inte kan ersättas av familjeband. Mot bakgrund av bland annat den trend av defamilisering som råder i samhället i övrigt, menar jag att undantaget inte har en plats i modern anställnings-skyddslagstiftning. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Section 1(2) of the Employment Protection Act (EPA) states that members of the employer’s family are exempt from most of the provisions of the Act. The purpose of the thesis is to investigate how private relations between the parties to the employment affect the employment relationship. Using a legal dogmatic method, the essay answers the following questions: (i) how has the exemption of the employer's family members from the EPA developed and been justified? (ii) who is covered by the exemption of family members? and (iii) how does the exemption of family members affect the employment protection of the concerned group?
Since the first employment legislation in 1912, the family has enjoyed a spe-cial status. The exemption of the... (More) - Section 1(2) of the Employment Protection Act (EPA) states that members of the employer’s family are exempt from most of the provisions of the Act. The purpose of the thesis is to investigate how private relations between the parties to the employment affect the employment relationship. Using a legal dogmatic method, the essay answers the following questions: (i) how has the exemption of the employer's family members from the EPA developed and been justified? (ii) who is covered by the exemption of family members? and (iii) how does the exemption of family members affect the employment protection of the concerned group?
Since the first employment legislation in 1912, the family has enjoyed a spe-cial status. The exemption of the employer’s family members was justified by the will to preserve the family from the coercion and intrusiveness of statutory regulation, and that the special "feelings of togetherness and belonging" in a family could replace regulation. When the EPA was introduced, it was said that the relationship between the employer and its family members is of such a special nature that it cannot be regulated by law. The exemption has led to specific consequences in terms of compliance with international conventions, such as preventing ratification of Article 24 of the European Social Charter.
The persons considered to be counted as family in the exemption should be interpreted broadly. It is clear from case law that it includes the employer's spouse, even for a period after a divorce. Cohabitants are also counted as fam-ily members. So are children, even when they have their own household. Stepchildren, foster children, and more distant relatives are covered if they live in the same household as the employer. A person can be considered an em-ployer even if the business is carried out in the form of a company, if the person has significant influence over the business.
A family member who is exempted from the EPA can be dismissed without objective reasons, provided that the employer does not violate any law or the dismissal constitutes a violation of the right of association. Rules on order of priority and priority for re-employment do not apply to the employer's family members. However, conditions in collective agreements or personal agreements may regulate the employment relationship.
Finally, the justification for the exemption is considered unsatisfactory, even if account is taken of a balance of interests between secure jobs and the protec-tion of family life. Workers who belong to the employer's family are moreover considered to have weak employment protection, which I believe cannot be replaced by family ties. In the light of the trend of defamilisation, I believe that the exemption has no place in modern employment protection legislation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9115897
- author
- Voigt Dahl, Nina LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The exemption of the employer's family members from the EPA
- course
- JURM02 20231
- year
- 2023
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Arbetsrätt, Labour law, Familj, LAS, Anställningsskydd, Arbetsgivare, Arbetstagare, Familjemedlemsundantaget, Familjeundantaget
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9115897
- date added to LUP
- 2023-06-12 13:52:28
- date last changed
- 2023-06-12 13:52:28
@misc{9115897,
abstract = {{Section 1(2) of the Employment Protection Act (EPA) states that members of the employer’s family are exempt from most of the provisions of the Act. The purpose of the thesis is to investigate how private relations between the parties to the employment affect the employment relationship. Using a legal dogmatic method, the essay answers the following questions: (i) how has the exemption of the employer's family members from the EPA developed and been justified? (ii) who is covered by the exemption of family members? and (iii) how does the exemption of family members affect the employment protection of the concerned group?
Since the first employment legislation in 1912, the family has enjoyed a spe-cial status. The exemption of the employer’s family members was justified by the will to preserve the family from the coercion and intrusiveness of statutory regulation, and that the special "feelings of togetherness and belonging" in a family could replace regulation. When the EPA was introduced, it was said that the relationship between the employer and its family members is of such a special nature that it cannot be regulated by law. The exemption has led to specific consequences in terms of compliance with international conventions, such as preventing ratification of Article 24 of the European Social Charter.
The persons considered to be counted as family in the exemption should be interpreted broadly. It is clear from case law that it includes the employer's spouse, even for a period after a divorce. Cohabitants are also counted as fam-ily members. So are children, even when they have their own household. Stepchildren, foster children, and more distant relatives are covered if they live in the same household as the employer. A person can be considered an em-ployer even if the business is carried out in the form of a company, if the person has significant influence over the business.
A family member who is exempted from the EPA can be dismissed without objective reasons, provided that the employer does not violate any law or the dismissal constitutes a violation of the right of association. Rules on order of priority and priority for re-employment do not apply to the employer's family members. However, conditions in collective agreements or personal agreements may regulate the employment relationship.
Finally, the justification for the exemption is considered unsatisfactory, even if account is taken of a balance of interests between secure jobs and the protec-tion of family life. Workers who belong to the employer's family are moreover considered to have weak employment protection, which I believe cannot be replaced by family ties. In the light of the trend of defamilisation, I believe that the exemption has no place in modern employment protection legislation.}},
author = {{Voigt Dahl, Nina}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Blod är tjockare än LAS - eller? Om anställningsskyddet för medlemmar i arbetsgivarens familj}},
year = {{2023}},
}