c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 213 in both Karl Staaff ’s government between1905-06and the EdénBranting ministry between 1917-20. His position regarding section 23 illuminates that a prominent liberal jurist by a simple reference to “the nature of things” could reach the conclusion that the contract of employment contained a pre-contractual condition; that the employer decides everything unless otherwise stated in the agreement. However, it also illuminates the diversity of opinion within the Liberal camp, where obviously not all representatives were unequivocally against the section 23 prerogatives. On the contrary, it seems that the speakers in the first chamber wanted to make the condition obligatory and impossible to do away with by a collective agreement.This was completely in line with the demands of the employers since 1905. The conservative first chamber swallowed - obviously extremely reluctantly - the bitter pill that the employer’s right to direct and distribute work would not be a binding rule when collective agreements were entered into. Despite this, and by the very close vote of 111-100, the second chamber rejected the revised 1910 proposal for labour law acts.439 The examples from the debate of 1910 clearly show that the issues concerning the workers’ duty of obedience and the employers’“section23 prerogatives”were highly controversial during the formative period of the Swedish labour law.The parliament’s decision of 1910 to reject the government’s bill on employment legislation took place with a majority of a few votes.The subject was far from being removed from the political agenda. As soon as the following year, the government made new proposals for acts on collective agreements, individual contracts and a labour court. As has been shown, during the debate in 1910, 439 FK1910:37, pp. 43-45.AK1910:64, p. 53.Westerståhl 1945, pp. 316f; Göransson 1988, pp. 177-181. 8. 3. 6 the leg i slat ive of fens ive cont inue s 1911. the round of submi tt ing op inions
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=