c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 197 of the party who wanted to violate the agreement”, or the damaging consequences of certain socially harmful industrial actions. One dwelt especially on the question of how one could best protect industrial peace and the work agreements that had been entered into, i. e. prevent workers from completely refusing to perform accepted work and employers from failing to pay agreed upon wages.402 In the same way as previously occurred in the law committee’s proposal for a bill on private law from1826, as in the French Code Civil (1804) and the German BGB (1900), the Swedish bill of 1910 divided individual work agreements into two main kinds.The first referred to a specific result; in other words, it was an heir tolocatio conductio operis.The other kind, which was most readily equated with locatio conductio operarum, referred to the work itself that was done in the ongoing operations.This latter kind of agreement was regulated in the proposal on certain individual contracts.As was the case in the 1901proposal, the government argued in favour of the proposal with reference to the fact that the agreement brought the parties into “such a closer relationship to each other that a legal regulation of the grounds for the agreements become especially necessary and desirable”.403 The interventionist ambition is also reflected by the statement that the principle of freedom of contract was not allowed to prevent the state from issuing compulsory legal enactments in order to prevent “more or less voluntary agreements” which were deemed to be unsuitable from the point of view of the public good.404 In several places, the employee was described as the weaker party who was in need of the legislator’s protection. This was done in terms that lead thoughts to the legal-political debate that was going on at that time, especially in Germany.The way 402 Prop. 1910:96, pp. 53, 55-58, 104. 403 Prop. 1910:96, Förslag till lag om vissa arbetsaftal (Act on Individual Labour Agreements Bill), p. 84. 404 Prop. 1910:96, p. 52.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=