c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 239 almost word for word from the original Statute on Hired Servants from1833, Hasselrot argued that the worker was subject to the authority of the employer and consequently should show him respect.The employer, in turn, was obligated to take good care of the worker and pay suitable regard to his health and his ability to work. If the contract did not explicitly regulate working terms, the worker had to carry out the work in a manner that was required because of its special kind or because of current custom in the branch of activity in question. Even while work was being done, the worker had to comply with the regulations and instructions of the employer in respect to the way the work should be done. However, Hasselrot set a boundary where the tasks were not allowed to conflict with the legitimate interest of the worker. This must be considered to be the case, for example, when the regulations and instructions entailed a greater inconvenience, effort or cost than that which had been stated in the contract.482 Both parties had the right to dissolve the relationship before the expiry of the contract if the other party grossly disregarded his or her obligations pursuant to law or special contract. According to Hasselrot, the worker should enjoy a certain amount of protection of employment in so far as shorter absence, indolence, insubordination etc. was allowed to cause termination be-fore the expiry of the contract only if the worker did not allow himself to be corrected by the employer’s warning. If no term of giving notice had been agreed upon, both parties had the right to revoke the relationship if they thought this best.483 Here, Hasselrot marked a considerable difference in relationship to the principles of the Statute on Hired Servants regarding long periods of contract. Like Chydenius, he did not want to transfer the rules of the Statute on Hired Servants concerning being picked up by the police. Counter to Chydenius, Hasselrot 482 Hasselrot 1926, pp. 14, 25. See also Linde 1852, p. 322. 483 Hasselrot 1920, pp. 241-277; Hasselrot 1919, p. 41, note 2.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=