given in hiring to people permanently living in the area and conscientious, unemployed workers; or in the case of layoffs due to a lack of work, the last person employed could be let go first. Nothing of this was in the proposal, which had completely accepted the employers’ points of view.456 The statements illuminate the connection the labour movement made between the duty of obedience and protection of employment, but it also indicates that the foremost representatives of the movement could assess security of employment to be more important than co-determination regarding the organisation of work. However, the ideas from Lindqvist, Branting and others to give preference to certain workers when hiring or laying off workers because of a shortage of work were objected to as being too unpredictable.The intention of the legislation was to express “the self-evident main rule” and then leave it to the parties to make the necessary modifications, depending on circumstances.457 As in1910, it was proposed that a special labour court be established in order to settle disputes about collective agreements. The court was to consist of three impartial members, of which two were to be jurists with a judge’s competence. Further, there would be two representatives of the employers’ organisations and two from the workers’ organisations.458 Just like the year before, the proposal received support from moderate Conservatives. For Ivar Afzelius, the proposal for a labour court was the central element of the proposal since it would guarantee that law would go before power.459 But, like the previous year, some of the left-wing sympathisers in the parliament voiced distrust of court jurists. Liberals such as Löfgren, Schotte, Wijk and Sandström as well as Assar Åkerman questioned whether a court that was dominated by jurists was the most suitable for p a r t i v, c h a p t e r 8 222 456 MFK1910:92, pp. 15-19. MAK1910:313, p. 17. 457 SU1:1 1911, p. 44. 458 Prop. 1911:43, section 4, p 8. 459 FK1911:24, p. 24.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=