the employer’s far-reaching right to change the terms of the contract - was not founded on a chain of decisions but emerged “in a more direct manner” (Sw. oförmedlat) and that it obviously was promotive of industrial peace.358 According to Schmidt, the court’s decision must be understood as an answer in an exchange of words concerning whether the employers’ or the trade unions’ system of organisation should decide the worker’s duty of obedience.359 Apparently Schmidt considered the court’s reasoning to be quite rational.On the other hand, when discussing the court’s decision in the case 1932:100 - which recognised the employer’s right to freely dismiss a worker - Schmidt critically characterises the court’s argumentation as “an effort to give a theoretical justification of the employer’s position”.360 Schmidt has also given an ambiguous explanation of the labour court’s decision 1934:179, according to which the employer was given the right to make the ad hoc interpretation of the contractual state of affairs.The court justified its decision by referring to an interest of not interrupting production. Schmidt, however, rejects this standpoint as being an explanation after the event. The reason why the ancient principle of the employer’s right to determine disputes of interpretation still had a living meaning was primarily “the interest of avoiding the subordinate discussing the legitimacy of an order before it is put into effect, because such discussions have a subversive influence on the discipline”.361 Göranson claims that the court’s reasoning rather reflected a reasoning of a legal-political character.362 p a r t i v, c h a p t e r 7 174 358 Sigeman 1977, pp. 203-208; Sigeman 1978, p. 182. 359 Schmidt, F 1957, pp. 220-221. 360 Geijer & Schmidt 1958, p. 140. 361 “Att principen alltjämt har levande innebörd, beror främst på intresset att undvika, att den underordnade diskuterar det berättigade i en order innan den utföres, ty sådana diskussioner inverkar nedbrytande på disciplinen.” Schmidt, F 1959, pp. 170-171. 362 Göranson 1988, pp. 260-263 (concerning case AD1934:179) and 362-363. See also Källström1993, pp. 189-201.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=