c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 233 a controversial decision about the employer’s direction of work and right to give notice. In1926, the 1833 Statute on Hired Servants, with its patriarchal rules about the far-reaching subordination of the workers, was abolished. The increasingly centralised trade union movement, on the one hand, could support the demand for increased worker influence, often called industrial democracy, and on the other, oppose the establishment of local instances for this purpose, for example, worker’s councils. A realisation of the principle of industrial democracy was moreover seen as demanding a change in the base of production itself, in the right of ownership of the means of production and in the foundational elements of the market economy.That approach had little possibility of getting a political majority in parliament.472 Interwoven into the political antagonism were the disagreements concerning how to fit the collective agreements into the legal scholars’ sophisticated system of concepts and general principles.These disagreements dealt with questions such as why, and how to tolerate, recognise and integrate workers’ associations and collective self-regulation; something that so clearly contravened the freedom of contract in a society as well as the current legal science, which no doubt was dominated by individualistic values. The Swedish judiciary had paid some attention to the legal character of collective agreements.As was mentioned above, In 1910. the Swedish Supreme Court declared that trade unions could be regarded as legal persons.473 This decision gave the court sufficient foundation in1915 to conclude - which marked an important legal sequel to the strike of 1909- that a collective agreement 472 Schiller 1974, pp. 316 ff. 473 NJA1910, p. 428. 9. 2 the judiciary. the b inding force of collect ive ag re ements and case law intent ions
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=