c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 195 again in the legal debate and the legislative process right up to the passing of the labour law acts in1928. In a similar manner the legal-political arguments that were ventilated in the parliament would return again and again. Illustrating the emerging Swedish corporatism in parliament, von Sydow represented the Conservatives and Lindqvist represented the Social Democrats. Starting from the dissolved committee’s ideas, the government in two rounds, 1910 and 1911, introduced extensive bills in parliament concerning acts on individual contracts of employment, collective agreements and a special court for labour disputes. These two bills were structured along the same lines as we have found in the Olin-Åkerman memorandum of 1907 as well as in the proposals from1908 and 1909 by the labour law committee. The big organisations on the labour market should be integrated into and regulated by the legal system, responsibility should be claimed for breaches of collective agreements and an arbitration board governed by the state should solve the disputes.This institution would be called the Labour Court and would be composed of professional judges and representatives of the big organisations.399 Both the bills led to intensive debates inside and outside parliament, and both were rejected, primarily due to resistance by the Social Democrats and the Liberals, which together were in the majority in the second chamber. The bill of 1910 concerned, among other things, an act on collective agreements, an act on individual contracts and an act about the establishment of a labour court. It is obvious that the government, by its legislative interventions, wanted to make use of the new legal phenomenon, the collective agreement, not only 399 Prop. 1910:96; Prop. 1911:43. Schiller 1967, pp. 54-55. 8. 3. 1 the conse rvat ive gove rnment ’s b i ll of 1910
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=