employer would have the right to revoke the agreement, for among other reasons, if the employee violated the plant regulations despite being warned or obviously being unable to work. As opposed to the rules of the Statute on Hired Servants, however, it was stipulated that if nothing else has been agreed upon, a mutual period of notice of seven-days applied.At the same time, the duty of obedience was restricted in so far as a worker who was “engaged to carry out a certain kind of work”, was not allowed to be used in another kind of work without his or her permission, unless it was a question of an undertaking that the worker could be enjoined to do in accordance with existing custom.As a reason, the government stated that it was in “the nature of things” to regard established customs as an important source of law. Legislation was not to appear as something new that could only with difficulty be absorbed into the general legal consciousness, but instead it should follow the manners and customs in use and which had already proven to be appropriate in practice.409 Thus, reference was made to the fact that the employer’s so called section 23 prerogatives had gained such acceptance by having been implemented in many collective agreements and that it was not possible to deviate from that without risk of a misunderstanding.410 Legislators were obviously faced with difficult political and legal considerations. On the one hand, the employer demanded the right to be able to make use of an unspecified obligation to work, which corresponded to the tradition from the Statute on Hired Servants of 1833, to section23 of the charter of the Swedish Employers’ Confederation and the December compromise of 1906. On the other hand, the worker could demand profesp a r t i v, c h a p t e r 8 200 409 Prop. 1910:96, Förslag till lag om vissa arbetsaftal (Act on Individual Labour Agreements Bill), sections 6, 19, 22, pp. 14, 17, 19, 86-88, 91-92, 96-97, 102-103.What is illustrative of the change in the Swedish political landscape is that the proposal at the same time maintained that the employer did not have the right to prevent the worker from exercising his right to vote in elections to parliamentary or local government assemblies. Prop. 1910:96, section 19, part 3, pp. 35-36, 52-53. 410 Prop. 1910:96, p. 91.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=