RB 64

c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 199 were not allowed to regulate just any workplace issue, but instead only those that “due to their nature” should be reserved to the employer’s right to make decisions, for example, the planning of working hours (not their extent), the way that wages were paid, and fines for disciplinary violations. To be sure, the employer was free to post other regulations, but these could not be counted as valid in the sense of the law, but instead had to derive their binding force from the agreement. At the same time, the bill emphasised the fact that, in addition to the right to give notice that the agreement could be held to contain, the act did not intend to give the workers any special authority due to the new rules in the plant regulations, to leave the work relationship.407 The rules about the so called section (§) 23prerogatives are another example of the ambition to guarantee the employer considerable scope.The bill of 1910 maintained in two different places the rule of the “December compromise” from1906, which stipulated that the employer had the right to “freely engage and dismiss workers [and] to direct and distribute work”. In the first place, in the proposed act on collective agreements it was stipulated that the collective agreement would not be allowed to prohibit or even to restrict the employer’s right in this matter. If the collective agreement contained such a restriction, it would be invalid.408 Secondly, it was proposed in the act on individual contracts that the same prerogative should be part of a pre-contractual condition in every individual labour contract. Moreover, the proposal contained a number of “ethical” rules that had been taken over from the 1833Statute on Hired Servants.These stipulated that the worker was obligated to show respect to the employer. At the same time, the employer had the obligation to treat his counterpart well and to watch over his health and ability to work.The 407 Prop. 1910:96, Förslag till lag om vissa arbetsaftal (Act on Individual Labour Agreements Bill), sections 13-17, pp. 16-17, 89-91. 408 Added due to the proposal of Pettersson from Bjälbo. SU2 1910:2, nr. 6, pp. 15-16, 54. Förslag till lag om kollektivaftal (Collective Agreement Act, Bill), revised version, section 9.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=