c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 175 363 Svensäter 1991, pp. 30-39. 364 Adlercreutz,T1971, pp. 171, 176. 365 Undén 1932; Schmidt, F 1957, pp. 220-223; Sigeman 1977, pp. 205-207. Svensäter suggests that many of the ancient patriarchal “masterservant” rules were considered as immanent components in the new types of contracts of employment.363 The same issue is brought up by Thomas Adlercreutz who claims that even if the Statute on Hired Servants was abolished in 1926, many of its characteristic features were partly preserved within the framework of the collective agreements, for example, the employer’s open-ended right to make use over the servant’s total skills.364 This connection to ancient modes of legal thinking is also suggested by Sigeman, who claims that some of the labour court’s decisions around1930 were probably not founded on values that corresponded to the views of the parliament’s majority. Sigeman hints that the court may have adapted some of the patriarchal traditions from the Statutes on Hired Servants as well as of the Guild Statutes to the actual state of things on the Swedish labour market in the 1920s. At the same time, he points out that the legal scholar Östen Undén, who was closely connected to the labour movement, as early as in 1932 expressed himself approvingly about the labour court.365 We will have cause to return to Undén’s statements about the making of modern labour law. At this stage it is enough to summarise our sketch of the state of research. The modern contract of employment was formed by the Swedish Labour Court’s decisions around1930.The court did make law, which often has been deemed to be in favour of the employer and which gave no references to legal sources.The decisions have been characterised either as founded on legal political ambitions or some tacit, instinctive values from pre-industrial and pre-democratic legal thinking. There might be a link between these two grounds, which is one important point of departure for the following study. What political and legal discussion formed the background to the court’s decisions? Did the worker’s duty of obedience play
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=