c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 223 the area in question. If something really good were to come from the act, local courts would have to be set up. The Social Democrats Blomberg, Steffen and Lindqvist, as well, held that the proposed composition of the court was entirely too juridical, which did not make it fully competent to decide disputes regarding collective agreements. Letting two jurists judges tip the scale was not intended to instil confidence among workers in the impartiality of the court while it would be enough to have one professionally educated jurist on the court.460 We thus see that Herman Lindqvist assumed in principle a more positive attitude to the labour court than he had expressed in the extensive resolution made by the Social Democrats the year before. Just the same, his position was criticised by the promoters of the legislation who claimed that it would be unsuitable in a court that was going to be the only instance of review to weaken entirely too much, the juridical element. Experience from the private arbitration procedures showed, moreover, that it was especially desirable to strengthen “the impartial element”. Far from judging a person to be incompetent; being versed in the law should be seen as something in favour of that person.461 The 1911 proposal met with the same fate as its predecessors. Parliament rejected the bill because of the compact resistance of the Liberals and Social Democrats in the second chamber.The Conservative government’s legislation project that had been going on for many years had thus been terminated.462 460 SU1:1 1911, pp. 24, 41, 43-44, 118-122. MFK1911:90, 91, 92. MAK1911:308. 461 SU1:1 1911, p. 24. 462 AK 1911:36, pp. 6-77; AK 1911:37, pp. 1-49. Rskr 1910:182; 1911:133. Westerståhl 1945, pp. 329-333.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=