c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 179 unions’ ambitions have been further studied by Boel Flodgren. She claims that the acts in 1928 about the regulation of collective agreements and the establishment of the labour court can be seen as an effort by management to “pin down” such employer rights that management still enjoyed in practice but which were now being threatened by an increasingly powerful labour union movement. However, the official motive was to promote industrial peace.374 As has been touched upon under the first issue above, Jonas Malmberg, among other scholars, has pointed out that the case law of the labour court during 1929-1934 must be regarded as pronouncedly favourable to the employers.375 Obviously, this aspect of collective self-regulation has a point in common with the first isssue’s aspect about the legal foundation of the contract of employment. How did the emergence of the modern Swedish contract of employment interact with the formation of a collectivist system? Did Swedish labour law history follow the path of repression-toleration-recognition-integration? What arguments were made in favour of, or against, letting disputes on collective agreements be mandatorily solved by a public labour court? Of special interest is to search for different opinions on how the court should be composed. How to balance the power between, on the one hand, legally trained judges and public servants and, on the other hand representatives of the big organisations on the labour market? The acts of 1928 were aimed at establishing an industrial peace obligation concerning “legal disputes”(Sw. rättstvister), which meant disputes intended to compel alteration or if the dispute prevailed as tothe correct meaning of a valid collective agreement.376 What opinions were delivered about defining the issues that 374 Flodgren 1978, pp. 71, 101, 255. 375 Malmberg 1997, pp. 373-375, 383-385; Sigeman 1977, p. 206; Sigeman 1984, pp. 880881. 376 Fahlbeck 2002, p. 125.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=