c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 211 433 MAK1910:270. AK1910:60, pp. 3-4. 434 AK1910:60, pp. 4-5. 435 FK1910:34, p. 32. AK1910:60, p. 5. 436 FK1910:34, pp. 32, 34, 36, 38. AK1910:59, p. 29. AK1910:60, pp. 62-63. dures of the court ought to deviate from what was stipulated in the old-fashioned Code of Judicial Procedure. Åkerman therefore argued in favour of the unrestricted sifting of evidence, no time-consuming reports of the proceedings, and the possibility to scrutinise all circumstances on the spot.433 The liberal jurist Per Axel Viktor Schotte, who, had participated in the work behind the 1906 act on arbitration, on the contrary emphasised the importance of there being two professional jurists on the court, who could deliberate the juridical issues together.434 Schotte’s approach regarding this also became that of the parliament. Both chambers approved the proposal to establish a labour court; however not until after a 141-54 vote in the second chamber.435 The Social Democrats’ distrust of jurists obviously did not have strong support among the parliament’s Liberals. Otherwise, the chambers reached different decisions in important principle questions, not least regarding the employer’s prerogative. Regarding the act on collective agreements that contained a prohibition against restricting the right of the employer to direct and distribute work, the first chamber was positive, while the second chamber voted 120-97 to exclude the section from the proposal.The second chamber also rejected the entire proposal for an act on individual agreements.436 On account of the different decisions, a proposal was formulated to bring the different opinions together. Among other things, this proposed a general prohibition against industrial actions in both disputes of interests and legal disputes. Moreover, this meant that the stipulation of the right of association and the employer’s 8. 3. 5 re j ect ion de sp i te an attempt to compromi se
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=